Warned about abuse, Vatican failed to defrock priest [NYT]

[Sonic]

:bigyikes:

What did I write that could possibly have caused you to believe that I insinuated that the OP took part in the scandal???

“Thou dost protest too much” is a sarcastic remark used to insinuate someone is championing the accused to cover up their own crimes.

If that is not what you meant, then no insinuation occurred. Just be careful how you turn a phrase. It could be misconstrued.

 

[mlund]

You do realize that this " repentant" man was a suspected child molester?

Yes, I do. I also realize that the Church has an obligation to forgive the penitent, even if he is a rapist, thief, murderer, terrorist, apostate, satanist, attempted assassin of the Pope, or even a child-molester. I know that just because some savage part of me would like to see the man flayed doesn’t mean I can expect the Church to exact retribution from him.

Do you realize that the offender being a child molester does not excuse the State of its obligation to due process under criminal law?

Do you realize that the offender being a child molester does not excuse the Church of its obligation to due process under canon law?

Neither the criminal justice system nor the Church’s justice system found this man fit to stand trial as due process required. Ergo, then-Cardinal Ratzinger did not commit a transgression by “failing to defrock” the priest in question because defrocking a priest requires such a trial under the Canon law.

That does not mean the priest wasn’t guilty of child molestation. He was guilty as sin. He admitted it. Nobody is claiming he did not commit heinous crimes against God and man. His sins left eternal marks upon his soul, even if his sins were forgiven. The horrible harm he has done to those vulnerable children can not be undone.

He’s dead, and the final judgment of his immortal soul rests with God Almighty.

An examination of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s action in this matter, however, does not reveal to me any negligence of his duties or endangerment of others.

• Marty Lund

 

[whm]

It seems such a simple, obvious thing, doesn’t it? Apparently it wasn’t as obvious to some, sadly.

Turn in to the civil authorities that already knew and declined to prosecute him? I’m confused, are we talking about somebody from the 1960-70’s or the decisions made 4 months before his death (1998)?

 

[freddo]

The gospel reading of last Sunday
Jn 8:1-11:

During homily last Sunday, our priest talked about the recent scandals in the church while making some references to the above passage. Because of language issues, I did not quite understand everything and couldn’t draw a conclusion from what he was trying to say.

But from my perspective, the above passage is very clear.
For me, it’s not that easy to report certain cases as some people might think.
Being the first to throw the stone is not an easy decision to make.

To the best of my knowledge, there are existing measures today to prevent such incidents from happening again.

I just want to bring up something else. I strongly believe that minors also have a major role to play in preventing such incidents. Babies cry when they are hungry or in an uncomfortable situation. Children/minors also do cry or complain when they are in pain or in certain uncomfortable/unfavourable situations.
Parents do discipline / blame their children/minors for wrong doing.

One day when I was walking home alone during the day (when I was a kid), there was someone suspiciously nearing me from behind. When he was just too close to me, I just started running and screaming. My parents and neighbours quickly came out (I was just a couple of seconds away from home). The suspicious person behind me vanished.

Don’t children/minors also have responsibilities (to scream / report certain cases)? Or shouldn’t children/minors be educated to act responsibly in certain circumstances?

This post disgusts me. These were CHILDREN. They have no culpability in the matter. Maybe they did bring it up and nobody believed them. In any case, the priest bears sole responsibility for the molestation. The bishops and whoever else who shielded the priests bear culpability for their parts. It is really a horrible mess but they have nobody to blame but themselves.

I would not say that children have a “responsibility” to scream or to report. I think that they should, of course, but this was also a long time ago. Children then were not treated the same way as they are now. Even with that, the responsibility lay on the shoulders of the priest.

People shouldn’t throw stones…I don’t know about that. We’re not talking about a priest who left his dirty socks on the floor. We’re talking about somebody who molested innocent little boys and children. I think that the mar on the church’s reputation should be one of the least concerns…the concern should be for the boys and how they were and continue to be affected by the abuse.

Gah. I have read some questionable things in this thread, but this post has really made me sick.

 

[anode]

Both of you have brought up the notion of some sort of Papal abdication. I’m wondering if you both know that that could lead to worse problems within the church. Ultimately, it could lead to an Antipope and a schism… which in turn would weaken the authority of the church to fix the problems and resulting in more abuses.

Perhaps you should read up on the Western Schism…

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Western_Schism

Your reasoning is similar to that of the hierarchy in handling the scandal. It was better to hush it up than to confess openly–it would lead to scandal in the Church! Maybe schism! Think of the Protestants!

Believe me, the ‘authority’ of the church has already been weakened, possibly irreversibly, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[anode]

Yes, I do. I also realize that the Church has an obligation to forgive the penitent, even if he is a rapist, thief, murderer, terrorist, apostate, satanist, attempted assassin of the Pope, or even a child-molester. I know that just because some savage part of me would like to see the man flayed doesn’t mean I can expect the Church to exact retribution from him.

Do you realize that the offender being a child molester does not excuse the State of its obligation to due process under criminal law?

Do you realize that the offender being a child molester does not excuse the Church of its obligation to due process under canon law?

Neither the criminal justice system nor the Church’s justice system found this man fit to stand trial as due process required. Ergo, then-Cardinal Ratzinger did not commit a transgression by “failing to defrock” the priest in question because defrocking a priest requires such a trial under the Canon law.

That does not mean the priest wasn’t guilty of child molestation. He was guilty as sin. He admitted it. Nobody is claiming he did not commit heinous crimes against God and man. His sins left eternal marks upon his soul, even if his sins were forgiven. The horrible harm he has done to those vulnerable children can not be undone.

He’s dead, and the final judgment of his immortal soul rests with God Almighty.

An examination of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s action in this matter, however, does not reveal to me any negligence of his duties or endangerment of others.

• Marty Lund

Forgieness is one thing. Prosecution of the offence is quite another. Forgiveness takes place in the confessional and I suspect the priest had already been forgiven.

Ratzinger was trying to protect the church from scandal. The crimes were long ago, the priest was old, ailing and repentant, and Ratzinger made a decision, the wrong one, it turns out. Still, his reasoning is understandable. BUT I think it wasn’t JUST that the sins were ‘old’–so he thought–the priest old and ailing, etc. etc. but that Ratzinger didn’t want any scandal. Better to hush it up. Now he has that scandal in spades on his doorstep.

 

[spn82756]

Forgieness is one thing. Prosecution of the offence is quite another. Forgiveness takes place in the confessional and I suspect the priest had already been forgiven.

Ratzinger was trying to protect the church from scandal. The crimes were long ago, the priest was old, ailing and repentant, and Ratzinger made a decision, the wrong one, it turns out. Still, his reasoning is understandable. BUT I think it wasn’t JUST that the sins were ‘old’–so he thought–the priest old and ailing, etc. etc. but that Ratzinger didn’t want any scandal. Better to hush it up. Now he has that scandal in spades on his doorstep.

And that is putting it in a nutshell!

 

[anode]

…(excerpt)

An examination of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s action in this matter, however, does not reveal to me any negligence of his duties or endangerment of others.

• Marty Lund

Yes, it did. Cardinal Ratzinger did endanger others. He made a calculated guess and it was wrong. By burying this man’s heinous crimes, Ratzinger postponed the resolution of the damage to his victims for a long time. This has only now come to light, 12 years after it might have, even then too late for many. Many of the victims are dead, others are old and feeble, like the perp was in 1998. The damage has been done to their lives irreversibly. Ratzinger postponed the call to judgment so that it could be discovered by others. This is parallel to his decision regarding Maciel (Legionaries’ founder, pedophile and fornicator) but probably involved more victims who were much more helpless.

This was a very bad move on Ratzinger’s part and he and the church will pay for it.

A priest.

Maybe TWO hundred boys.

DEAF boys–(who’s going to listen to them?)

IF there are more stories like this one coming out of Germany which implicate him, Ratzinger will no longer be an effective pope. He won’t resign, but it will be as if he isn’t there.

 

[serrevin]

and as far as the children’s “responsibility/culpability” for not “screaming” or whatever you were insinuating please consider the following:
many catholic are under the impression that the priest has power over their very souls for the forgiveness (or lack thereof) of their sins!! to hold a child in any way responsible for not standing up to the very priest who has authority to forgive (or not) sins is criminal. there is no analogy in the secular world to the type of hold that a priest has over the pyschology and spiritual formation of a child.
the more I read these comments the more i’m convinced that there is spiritual darkness at work over there in rome.

 

[Sonic]

Your reasoning is similar to that of the hierarchy in handling the scandal. It was better to hush it up than to confess openly–it would lead to scandal in the Church! Maybe schism! Think of the Protestants!

Believe me, the ‘authority’ of the church has already been weakened, possibly irreversibly, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Really? Excuse me if I don’t chuckle a little when I say…

Darn it! You caught me! You’re on to my insidious plan! Drat and double drat!

Edit:

In all seriousness, I don’t think there is a process for abdication of a Pope. My reason for posting the article was to show what happened the last time someone tried to unseat a Pope. That’s a legitimate historical example. It’s not an argument for against covering up any scandal.

 

[pnewton]

*These stories are new to me, and many. The actual incidents being reported happened a while ago, yes. But, it’s news because the victims are coming forth and suing…now and in recent past. *

Right. They are suing now. Practically speaking, evidence of such crimes is often impossible to produce decades later. That is why most crimes have statute of limitations. There are real reasons why victims should not, must not wait decades before saying anything. I know that there are times when some simply can not confront such issues for years. However, what ever the cause for such enourmous delay, it is unrealistic to expect the same level of response as when a crime should have been reported.

These people need real prison time, not defrocking. The State is first and foremost responsible for investigating crime and punishing crime.

 

[dixieagle]

Turn in to the civil authorities that already knew and declined to prosecute him? I’m confused, are we talking about somebody from the 1960-70’s or the decisions made 4 months before his death (1998)?

I refer to when the abuses were first committed, and the fact that the simple, right thing to do was to report the abuse…and for the authorities to follow up leads. None of this happened. The whole sorry affair was shameful beyond words.

 

[anode]

Really? Excuse me if I don’t chuckle a little when I say…

Darn it! You caught me! You’re on to my insidious plan! Drat and double drat!

Edit:

In all seriousness, I don’t think there is a process for abdication of a Pope. My reason for posting the article was to show what happened the last time someone tried to unseat a Pope. That’s a legitimate historical example. It’s not an argument for against covering up any scandal.

No one is going to try to unseat the pope. He will have unseated himself. He will have lost his moral authority, if he is implicated in any more cover ups of pedophile scandals, or decisions to do nothing, which amounts to a cover up. He can retire because of age or ill-health, which JPII considered doing, so it must be possible–but he will probably soldier on, his effective leadership over.

 

[anode]

Right. They are suing now. Practically speaking, evidence of such crimes is often impossible to produce decades later. That is why most crimes have statute of limitations. There are real reasons why victims should not, must not wait decades before saying anything. I know that there are times when some simply can not confront such issues for years. However, what ever the cause for such enourmous delay, it is unrealistic to expect the same level of response as when a crime should have been reported.

These people need real prison time, not defrocking. The State is first and foremost responsible for investigating crime and punishing crime.

The state wasn’t consulted. This is because of the unique nature of these crimes against the most helpless and victimized–deaf children-- by the the representatives of God on Earth, priests in the Catholic Church. These crimes against children produce damage which lasts a lifetime, so that there is no statute of limitations in the moral sense, nor in any case which involves the Catholic or any other religious body, for which people have very long memories.

It’s too bad, it was a long time ago, they have corrected the screening process, etc. etc., but as recently as 1998 Cardinal Ratzinger decided to Do Nothing, ostensibly because he felt sorry for an old man, but really because he wanted to Avoid Scandal.

If there are other examples of his decision-making in these circumstances, and there may well be, his attempts to Avoid Scandal will destroy his pontificate.

 

[Sonic]

He can retire because of age or ill-health, which JPII considered doing, so it must be possible–but he will probably soldier on, his effective leadership over.

I don’t believe they are allowed to retire. Perhaps, you should ask one of the experts here at CAF.

Edit: As I understand, there is a change that occurs when a person becomes a priest. Another change occurs when a person becomes a Bishop. It happens again when a person becomes a Pope. Once a person becomes a Pope, they cannot go back to being a regular Bishop or Priest. Since, there is only supposed to be one Pope at a time, it’s not likely one will retire and another will take over. At least, that’s what I understand…

 

[whm]

The state wasn’t consulted. .

How did the state decide not to prosecute if they were not aware of complaints?

 

[Zatzat]

Don’t children/minors also have responsibilities (to scream / report certain cases)? Or shouldn’t children/minors be educated to act responsibly in certain circumstances?

Kelvinf, several poster have called you out for this, this……post. Have you read the responses and have you re-thought your statement?

 

[sidbrown]

Sidbrown! How are ya? We agree!

I am fine. How are things in Massachusetts these days?

 

[silentstar]

Right. They are suing now. Practically speaking, evidence of such crimes is often impossible to produce decades later. That is why most crimes have statute of limitations. There are real reasons why victims should not, must not wait decades before saying anything. I know that there are times when some simply can not confront such issues for years. However, what ever the cause for such enourmous delay, it is unrealistic to expect the same level of response as when a crime should have been reported.

These people need real prison time, not defrocking. The State is first and foremost responsible for investigating crime and punishing crime.

I don’t really agree with this. Sometimes things happen to change the picture.

For example, I was abused by a priest when I was 12. I was not successful getting anyone to listen. However I did tell a detective 25 years later. The reason was that this abuser, who had left the priesthood, had run into one of his former victims. And then he propositioned the survivor in writing by saying ‘hey let’s continue our relationship’ and sending that to the former victim.

Well the guy who was in his early 40s or so (this was 2005, 25 years after his abuse which happened in 1980 the same as mine) took that note to the police. And there was enough evidence to arrest the ex-priest and try him. He is now in jail.

After he was arrested, the church I went to started asking people to come forward if they had been abused by him. One other guy and I talked to the police. I am female and I don’t know if I was the only female victim.

Some people have come forward b/c they thought growing up that they were the only one and then later they find out that was not true. I did not ask for or receive any money from the Church and I pay for my own counseling. The detective could not use my testimony b/c it was so old. However it showed the same m.o. as with the other victim (to be abused in the sacrament of reconciliation when we went to him for help with problems.)

I tried to tell at the time but no one listened. Then I thought it was too late until I heard this other stuff. I hope that I provided moral support to the person who pursued this in the legal system.

It is certainly better to tell promptly and I don’t support people who are abused now waiting for long periods of time. If at all possible I think it’s better to report b/c others could be at risk. However survivors often need a lot of support in telling, especially if they are children.

 

[Ocarm]

As I understand, there is a change that occurs when a person becomes a priest. Another change occurs when a person becomes a Bishop. It happens again when a person becomes a Pope.

Actually, no. The pope is ‘merely’ a bishop, and the episcopal character he assumes when he is ordained bishop is sufficient for his holding office of Bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Once a person becomes a Pope, they cannot go back to being a regular Bishop or Priest. Since, there is only supposed to be one Pope at a time, it’s not likely one will retire and another will take over. At least, that’s what I understand…

Because no special papal state of being properly exists, this is not specifically true. However, having a pope emeritus would be very unusual. The legal provisions for a resignation or removal from office are very complex, but are set up in such a way precisely so as to avoid schism. A pope can resign, however.

Can. 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

Hope this helps.