Vatican: Pope was 'completely extraneous' to Munich sex abuse decision [CNA]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CNA_News

Guest
Vatican City, Mar 13, 2010 / 12:22 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning in which he made three “observations” regarding sexual abuse by people and in institutions of the Catholic Church. He also addressed dismissed as unfounded attempts to link the Pope to a decision to transfer a priest found to have committed sexual abuse when Benedict XVI was Archbishop of Munich.

The first of the three “observations” made by Fr. Lombardi was to point out that the “line taken” by the German Bishops’ Conference has been confirmed as the correct path to confront the problem in its different aspects.

Fr. Lombardi included some elements of the statement made by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch at a Friday press conference following his audience with the Pope. The Vatican spokesman highlighted the approach established by the German bishops to respond to the possible abuses: “recognizing the truth and helping the victims, reinforcing the preventions and collaborating constructively with the authorities - including those of the state judiciaries - for the common good of society.”

Full article…
 
This is getting to be an absolute nightmare…

I don’t know what to think, to be honest; I’m totally at a loss.

I need evidence that the Holy Father was not involved; I **hope **it comes.
 
I agree.

It will be difficult to acknowledge as Pope a man who is supposed to be sitting in a prison cell for obstructing justice and who passed a blind eye to pedophilia.
 
Harry S Truman had a sign in his office saying
Code: 
               THE BUCK STOPS HERE
Who was in charge of the Archodiocese?
 
There is NO evidence what so ever that the then Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in a cover up.

He Accepted a Priest from another diocese for therapy. Therapy was what Cardinal Ratzinger expected to happen. The then Vicar General decided to transfer this priest to a Parish, a gross failing yes, but nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger as the V.G of Munich was responsible for the assignment of the over 1200 Priests of the Archdiocese. No complaints were made about this Priest until 1982, that is to say AFTER Cardinal Ratzinger was called to Rome.
dnu said:
It will be difficult to acknowledge as Pope a man who is supposed to be sitting in a prison cell for obstructing justice and who passed a blind eye to pedophilia.
Click to expand...
I agree but who ever that man is, it sure isn’t Benedict XVI.
 
Theophorus,

you don’t know how badly I want to believe you; could you please provide your sources of information? The closer to orginal documentation, the better, in this case.
 
 
Thank you very much Theophorus. I will read through these - and any other information that might come up - and get back to you tomorrow. I hope I will be able to come to the same conclusion.
 
I’m still keeping an eye on the feeds, websites and terrestrial media myself if anything new comes up I will post that as well.

God Bless
 
Thanks for the links, Theophorus.

I came in search of ammunition to post at a local news blog. You have been a great help to those of us who might be to busy to do the footwork.
 
Theophorus said:
There is NO

evidence what so ever that the then Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in a cover up.

He Accepted a Priest from another diocese for therapy. Therapy was what Cardinal Ratzinger expected to happen. The then Vicar General decided to transfer this priest to a Parish, a gross failing yes, but nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger as the V.G of Munich was responsible for the assignment of the over 1200 Priests of the Archdiocese. No complaints were made about this Priest until 1982, that is to say AFTER Cardinal Ratzinger was called to Rome.

Very true & anyone who reads the whole article will know this.

It’s hard for me to accept that even CNS. is now using the word pedophilia. Our sexual abuse scandal is not one of pedophilia…it’s one of pederasty. The following comes from David Thorstad, one of the leaders of the NAMBLA movement in which “Father” Paul Shanley was very involved:

[SIGN]"The issue of love between men and boys has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century, with the rise of the first gay rights movement in Germany. In the United States, as the gay movement has retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures, it has increasingly sought to marginalize even demonize cross-generational love. Pederasty - that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age - say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even “sexual abuse.”
nambla.org/pederasty.htm[/SIGN]

Pope Benedict, by issuing a letter to the bishops forbidding homosexuals to be ordained as priests, has done more to curb pederasty than any pope since John XXIII…whose similar letter was, of course, ignored. Many of our US. hierarchy are dancing in circles trying to find a way to “interpret” Pope Benedict’s letter. We’ll see how many of them obey it this one.
I agree but who ever that man is, it sure isn’t Benedict XVI.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It is very discouraging that by inuendo alone an activist media can cynically distort facts and cast aspersions on the Roman Catholic Church at every turn, and reveal by this dispicable practice, a clearly malicious intent to attack and injure the church with impunity. I pray for divine intervention. May we have a visible sign, dear Lord. So many of us are deeply wounded by these constant barrages. Your people are weary and in need of refreshment.
 
Methinks the Vatican doth protest too much.
CNA_News said:
Vatican City, Mar 13, 2010 / 12:22 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning in which he made three “observations” regarding sexual abuse by people and in institutions of the Catholic Church. He also addressed dismissed as unfounded attempts to link the Pope to a decision to transfer a priest found to have committed sexual abuse when Benedict XVI was Archbishop of Munich.

The first of the three “observations” made by Fr. Lombardi was to point out that the “line taken” by the German Bishops’ Conference has been confirmed as the correct path to confront the problem in its different aspects.

Fr. Lombardi included some elements of the statement made by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch at a Friday press conference following his audience with the Pope. The Vatican spokesman highlighted the approach established by the German bishops to respond to the possible abuses: “recognizing the truth and helping the victims, reinforcing the preventions and collaborating constructively with the authorities - including those of the state judiciaries - for the common good of society.”

Full article…
Click to expand...
 
I agree. The story told by the Vatican, and protested ad nauseam is probably the correct story, but in the past years, we have witnessed priest after priest covered up by bishop after bishop, and frankly this has the smell of something that might break loose later.

I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that JPII thought the priest pedophile problem to Anglo-Saxon countries. This is an issue that, frankly, the RC Church is going to have to grapple with in a far more invasive way than the recent visit to the Vatican by the Irish bishops.

The Roman Catholic Church is a huge bureaucracy, and as mentioned earlier, the decisions of the Archbishop of a large diocese need to be delegated.

My guess is that if there are no new allegations or incidents involving Joseph Ratzinger, this story will go away. If not, the press will have a field day, at least. At worst, well, I don’t want to speculate on the worst.

Joseph Ratzinger is obviously a decent and pious man. I pray for his continued guidance.
Theophorus said:
There is NO evidence what so ever that the then Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in a cover up.

He Accepted a Priest from another diocese for therapy. Therapy was what Cardinal Ratzinger expected to happen. The then Vicar General decided to transfer this priest to a Parish, a gross failing yes, but nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger as the V.G of Munich was responsible for the assignment of the over 1200 Priests of the Archdiocese. No complaints were made about this Priest until 1982, that is to say AFTER Cardinal Ratzinger was called to Rome.

I agree but who ever that man is, it sure isn’t Benedict XVI.
Click to expand...
 
unafraid said:
It is very discouraging that by inuendo alone an activist media can cynically distort facts and cast aspersions on the Roman Catholic Church at every turn, and reveal by this dispicable practice, a clearly malicious intent to attack and injure the church with impunity. I pray for divine intervention. May we have a visible sign, dear Lord. So many of us are deeply wounded by these constant barrages. Your people are weary and in need of refreshment.
Click to expand...
I join you in your prayer, Unafraid. The fact is that we are under seige from many directions.
 
judechild said:
I need evidence that the Holy Father was not involved; I **hope **it comes.
Click to expand...
Actually, in common law, what you need is evidence that he WAS involved. Otherwise, we would have to assume (and we should assume) that the Holy Father was and is innocent.
 
we’ll just pray for the Catholic Church. The Church is made up of human beings and as humans we are all imperfect. Let us all pray for our Pope and our church leader that they may not be tempted by Satan and that they lead and show good examples to all.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
wanna read innuendo?

vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/03/is-the-pope-toast.html
Click to expand...
Nope!! As a Catholic I’ve read enough of that sort of garbage. Hints of this & smidgens of that. I’ve been Catholic since birth & have seen & read enough criticism that some of the leaders in my Church actually deserved & more that they didn’t.

I’ve had it much easier than my Father, though. He was born in 1914 & spent his childhood in a small town in Kansas, with a large Mexican population brought in to break a railroad strike. Of course, the Mexicans were Catholic…so the Klan burned a cross on the Church lawn. Almost burned the Church down while they were at it.

Myself, in the 50’s I was roughed up by 3 girls while I waited at a bus stop. Their reason?? I had a Catholic school uniform on.

You Episcopalians are probably not used to that kind of thing. Many of us older Catholics are. God’s opinion is what really matters to me, & I know that God wanted Pope Benedict for our Holy Father. He will give him the strength to survive it, & the daily prayers of so many Catholics
will help carry him through.
 
Theophorus said:
He Accepted a Priest from another diocese for therapy. Therapy was what Cardinal Ratzinger expected to happen. The then Vicar General decided to transfer this priest to a Parish, a gross failing yes, but nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger as the V.G of Munich was responsible for the assignment of the over 1200 Priests of the Archdiocese. No complaints were made about this Priest until 1982, that is to say AFTER Cardinal Ratzinger was called to Rome…
Click to expand...
The problem with this whole scandal isn’t just that the abuse was covered up for decades but also that Archbishops have continuously provided empty excuses for their inaction ranging from claims that they didn’t know that child molestation was/is a crime (Rembert Weakland) to ignorance of what was taking place in their own diocese. One would think that known or suspected sex offenders within the diocese would be an issue closely watched by an Archbishop. Is Ratzinger guilty of a cover up? The infamous letter reported in the media and penned by him is certainly damning evidence but, since I haven’t read it in it’s entirety, I’d say he’s guilty of gross negligence at best. I don’t care how many priests are in that Archdiocese; that specific priest was brought to his attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top