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

[Peccavi]

the defenders of the Church over child abuse, who accuse the media of a witch-hunt, must
accept responsibility for my Church in the UK hemorrhaging Catholics over this issue. The laity feel betrayed by the priesthood. Frankly we lay Catholics have sat quiet on the sidelines too long. It is time we took a more active role in the church. We too were silent on this issue…yet Christs injunction is plain …in as much as you do it to these my children you do it to me !!
So stop hiding behind clerical niceties and face up to it…our priesthood has let us down, It is time for Vatican III and reform.

 

[Alexia2000]

No, he can’t by the seal of confession. But, if that raped woman says that she was raped, and tells who the rapist was, should anyone else report him for the crime?

I think by law church officials are required to report any crime that they have knowledge about (outside of knowledge obtained through the sacrament of reconciliation of course). To refrain from doing so is itself a criminal act.

Thank you both; I understand now

 

[lemonbeam]

I heard one of the Wisconsin victims on BBC news earlier and he said he basically blamed the Pope for the fact his abuser went free.

As much as I feel for the victims, you can not say these things about evidence. Why didn’t they go the Police, back then? Or did they go to the Police, but did they just brush it off, because it was thought then, pedophiles could be cured by therapy.

The New York Times and other newspapers who are saying the Pope was involved in a cover up should be sued for libel!

According to Jimmy Akin at ncregister.com:

**For a start, it wasn’t one of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s priests. He was the cardinal archbishop of Munich, but the priest was from the diocese of Essen.

And Cardinal Ratzinger did not, contrary to some reports, send the priest for therapy—or return him to ministry.

He allowed the priest to stay in a rectory so that he could receive treatment in Munich.

According to Phil Lawler,

There is no evidence that the Pope was aware the accused priest was an accused pedophile; he was evidently informed only that the priest had been guilty of sexual improprieties.

So what we have, apparently, is a situation in which the bishop of Essen (or someone) came to Cardinal Ratzinger and said, “There’s a priest from the diocese of Essen who has committed sexual improprieties and needs to receive counselling. Can you put him up in a rectory while he is given psychological therapy in Munich?”

And Ratzinger said yes.

How sinister is that?

This wasn’t his priest. Whether the priest would return to ministry after counselling wasn’t his decision. All he’s doing is allowing the man to have a room in a local rectory while he undergoes therapy.

And what if it turns out he did know that the sexual improprieties involved children?

At that time (1980) it was commonly thought that paedophiles could be cured through psychological counselling.

Even the British religion reporter Ruth Gledhill, writes:

What is often forgotten is how little was known of paedophilia. It was believed it could be cured, and that penitence was tantamount to recovery.

So, the narrative of a bishop secretively transferring his priests—who he knows are incurable, repeat offenders—from parish to parish does not apply.

However, at some point, Lawler notes,

the vicar general of the Munich archdiocese made the decision to let the accused priest help out at a parish. That vicar general, Msgr. Gerhard Gruber, says that he made that decision on his own, without consulting the cardinal. The future Pope never knew about it, he testifies. Several years later, long after Cardinal Ratzinger had moved to a new assignment at the Vatican, the priest was again accused of sexual abuse.

That time the priest was convicted and punished according to German law.

But we still don’t have a set of facts that supports the pope-as-paedophile-enabler narrative that the Times wants to suggest.

Even Ruth Gledhill (employed by the Times) acknowledges:

*The latest scandal coming out of Germany is not enough to threaten the Pope or the Church. But on top of a succession of damaging revelations it can only increase the damage being done to its moral authority on the world stage. The killer fact that could bring down the Pope or Church probably does not even exist.

The Pope is pretty unassailable. He is not elected, he is a monarch, and the centralisation that has taken place under the last two Popes has cemented that power. Pope Benedict XVI has also indicated in his three encyclicals the depths of his own integrity and intellectual rigour.*

Setting aside Gledhill’s failure to note basic facts of the subject she reports on (the pope is elected; remember that conclave thingie in 2005? how we got Pope Benedict? presumably she means that he doesn’t have to face re-election), I think she’s right.
**

The Pope was not implicit in a cover up of the sex abuse scandal concerning the Wisconsin Priest.

 

[dontknow]

This is not just *any *sin.

Agreed!

Yet another example of how far journalism has degenerated - it is really quite sad.

They want to smear Pope Benedict XVI because his office did not put a dying, professedly repentant man on a trial where he could not defend himself due to infirmity. They don’t bother to mention that civil judiciaries do the same thing all the time. They also bury in the back of the article the fact that civil charges were dropped against this priest.

Their outrage is selective, hypocritical, and ignorant. Works like this demean the value of the written word.

• Marty Lund

Say what??? The only “works” that demean the value of the written word are the “works” of performing the acts and knowing the acts existed and not bringing proper charges to authorities for further investigations…

When this first came out, it was seen as isolated incidents…when was that, like 10 yrs ago? Now, this seems so far reaching, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to believe that no one knew the depth of all of this. They said nothing, and transferred priests to harm other kids, because they (those in charge) didn’t want a scandal, which is far worse than it ever would have been, had those offending priests been removed, and defrocked years ago, when it should have happened. There is NO excuse for this to have happened, in so many different dioceses, across the world. It has tarnished Christ’s Church, and good honest priests’ reputations. I believe in God’s forgiveness, but these men should never have been able to remain priests (and Bishops that shuffled them all around), once it was WELL KNOWN that crimes were commited. This goes way beyond the sin of chastity…these are crimes against society. And these men were never dealt with, and hurt more and more kids every year. We have a huge mess on our hands now…and making excuses for men who abused kids, please stop. We are all sinners, but we must own what we do…this is what the Church teaches us, and so those who are in the clergy, should own this, and stop saying they didn’t know how bad it was, or that it would continue, or they didn’t know. They did know, and did nothing…

This and everything else WG has posted reflects my thoughts…

What are *you *saying? That the pope, if he’s found to be complicit, should be beyond the reach of this thing? If he played a part in covering up abuse, he *should *step down.

Agreed then bring legal charges against him and anyone else alive involved… If found guilty - treat them for what they would be at that point - criminals of sex abuse.

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?

 

[spn82756]

I know…that may be one of the most shocking statements made on the forum in a long time.

 

[Ella]

"anode:

To be…um…fair, the priest didn’t ‘rape’ them --in the usual sense of the word used in this context, which is sodomy, which would be forced anal intercourse (sorry…). He ‘molested’ them, which is he fingered their genitals–(how he did this in the confessional is not clear…). This violates privacy and the integrity of the body, but it isn’t rape in the usual sense of the word (I guess)."

the very fact that these distinctions are being made is amazing to me. i’ve got three children and I cannot imagine something like that happening to them and hearing this as a response. as far as “why didn’t they go to police first, why did they go to the bishop” it’s my understanding of catholic theology/doctrine that they hold more power than the state. it amazes me that this person was allowed to do this and that folks are willing to defend those who allowed this type of thing to continue unchecked.

Agreed. And Anode- it’s rape.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

I don’t know if anyone has posted this, but here is an extended response to charges made against Benedict XVI by Christopher Hitchens about these issues:

catholiceducation.org/art…ics/ap0329.htm

 

[pnewton]

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.

So you say. Yet, what you claim to know, that the Holy Father had the most base of motives, is judging him in precisely the way we are forbidden by Christ to judge others, namely judging the hearts of others. Further, your scenario is born of the pits of Hell when you talk about destroying the pontificate of the one who rules in the authority of the Church. Do we forget all we believe so quickly at every shift of the wind. I hear in the voices of Catholics today the same grumblings of the obstinate Israelites that every turn lost their faith in God. Let us not foget what happened to them. They were denied entry into the Promised Land.

Pope Benedict is not going to resign. He is not subject to human politics or polls like the secular world is today. He also is not so ignorant to swallow the lure of the media that is constantly out to trap him in order to bring wound the Body of Christ. There may come a day of signicficant scandal that makes me dig deep in into what I believe about whether God will keep His promises. But this ridiculous incident will not be the cause for even a hiccup. The facts speak for themselves. The timeline speaks for itself. Let the press seek out more gullible victims.

 

[a2jimenez]

There may come a day of significant scandal that makes me dig deep in into what I believe about whether God will keep His promises. But this ridiculous incident will not be the cause for even a hiccup. The facts speak for themselves. The timeline speaks for itself. Let the press seek out more gullible victims.

Very well said

 

[serrevin]

ridiculous incident?
ridiculous incident?

this is amazing to me. it’s truly instructive as to what priorities are. the destruction of children upwards of 200 plus is boiled down simply to a “ridiculous incident”

wow.

 

[whatevergirl]

*I don’t think pnewton meant the abuse as being ‘‘ridiculous,’’ but rather the smearing of our Pope.

But, a thorough investigation SHOULD be made, in my eyes, and then a TRUE determination made as to the FACTS. A lot of hearsay and speculation, and snippits from the news is not enough to convict anyone of anything in the court system. I don’t think our Pope should ‘‘resign,’’ unless he is truly guilty of knowing full well about the abuse of children, and instructing others to transfer them. But, I don’t understand why there isn’t an investigation going on into this…a lot of children were abused and hurt…and this warrants more from us Catholics than…‘well, it happened a long time ago.’

If it were one of our kids in this forum, we might think very very differently. As a Catholic, I’m not just turning a blind eye to this…I want to see what the Pope knew and when…and how he dealt with it, before I make ANY conclusions. THAT is what we are called to do as Christians…not jump to conclusions about someone’s guilt before having facts. We are also to not judge the sinner, but hate the sin. I and no one here is in a position to judge Pope Benedict, but he is not above the law, and a thorough investigation of the FACTS should be underway, to get to the bottom of if at all, he was culpable for priests, this one and others, being transferred when abuse was brought to light.*

 

[Hans2010]

This entire situation is not a religious question, it is a moral and judicial question.

IF, and as a lifelong Catholic, I say that very seriously…IF the allegations of cover ups and participation in moving pedophiles are proven to be true, and include Pope Benedict, then this Pope has a Moral obligation to step down. In addition, all those priests, worldwide, who participated in the abuse of children AND the cover up of the abuse of children should be prosecuted both by the laws of the country in which they reside AND defrocked by the Vatican. These are not Holy men. They are men masquerading as Holy men and have no right to claim participation in Christ’s church on earth.

There are several things that amaze me and deeply trouble about this entire thing.

First, how in the world did these men, who had such a profound calling to Christ that they became priests, ever divert so far from the path of his teaching, especially about Children. One could reasonably ask, I believe, if this is not the direct work of Evil/Devil. If that is the case, then by not rooting it out, the Church has provided rich and terrible food for evil to feed upon.

Second, how in the world do these men put their heads down to sleep at night. If they truly believe they are going to meet Christ after death, are they not terrified of the fate that awaits them?

Third, I remain deeply wounded by the leaders of my Church, in Rome and in Philadelphia, where I happen to live, who cared more for their earthly positions than for the care and welfare of the innocent.

I would not want to be in their shoes at this critical moment in time. The question now, is, what are they going to do to save their souls. Asking for forgiveness, or ignoring the facts, are not going to make that happen. Christ was very clear about how he felt about children.

 

[whatevergirl]

This entire situation is not a religious question, it is a moral and judicial question.

IF, and as a lifelong Catholic, I say that very seriously…IF the allegations of cover ups and participation in moving pedophiles are proven to be true, and include Pope Benedict, then this Pope has a Moral obligation to step down. In addition, all those priests, worldwide, who participated in the abuse of children AND the cover up of the abuse of children should be prosecuted both by the laws of the country in which they reside AND defrocked by the Vatican. These are not Holy men. They are men masquerading as Holy men and have no right to claim participation in Christ’s church on earth.

There are several things that amaze me and deeply trouble about this entire thing.

First, how in the world did these men, who had such a profound calling to Christ that they became priests, ever divert so far from the path of his teaching, especially about Children. One could reasonably ask, I believe, if this is not the direct work of Evil/Devil. If that is the case, then by not rooting it out, the Church has provided rich and terrible food for evil to feed upon.

Second, how in the world do these men put their heads down to sleep at night. If they truly believe they are going to meet Christ after death, are they not terrified of the fate that awaits them?

Third, I remain deeply wounded by the leaders of my Church, in Rome and in Philadelphia, where I happen to live, who cared more for their earthly positions than for the care and welfare of the innocent.

I would not want to be in their shoes at this critical moment in time. The question now, is, what are they going to do to save their souls. Asking for forgiveness, or ignoring the facts, are not going to make that happen. Christ was very clear about how he felt about children.

Yes, I agree. I don’t want to see our Pope go through a smear campaign, however, I want to know with accuracy, what happened, and we cannot turn a blind eye to potential possibilities. You write well, I enjoyed your post.

 

[mlund]

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.

You seem to be missing a fundamental understanding of the article as well as the Church.

On the matter of the article: The priest in question was already facing criminal charges - hence the buried fact in the article that civil authorities dropped said charges.

On the matter of the Church: The Church does not prosecute members for crimes and sins. Excommunication and Laicization are not employed as a means of exacting retribution or justice for crimes.

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.

You’re ascribing motive without evidence to back it up.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not put the dying priest before Canon Law trial because he was unfit to stand trial. Cardinal Ratzinger did not cover up any abuse as the abuse he was notified of was prosecuted in the government’s criminal justice system.

dontknow:

Say what??? The only “works” that demean the value of the written word are the “works” of performing the acts and knowing the acts existed and not bringing proper charges to authorities for further investigations…

You seem to have overlooked the part in the article where it states that the government’s criminal charges against the priest were dropped before this death. The proper charges were already brought to authorities for investigation.

• Marty Lund

 

[dontknow]

You seem to have overlooked the part in the article where it states that the government’s criminal charges against the priest were dropped before this death. The proper charges were already brought to authorities for investigation.

• Marty Lund

Actually I didn’t.

The article states something along the lines that they (the authorities) ignored the issue (article states something like “got a pass”).

That doesn’t mean he was innocent and shouldn’t have been put behind bars like the priests in my hometown have who have been found guilty of it (thank goodness we don’t have a ****** police dept).

Unfortunately the Pope isn’t so innocent of not knowing though and should be rightfully in-depth investigated. If found guilty - let the justice system handle that sentence as well.

Anyone, regardless of role, religion, race, nationality or occupation - if guilty of this should be treated accordingly.

It’s not just a “sin” - it’s a crime.

 

[FightingFat]

Archbishop Vincent Nichols wrote a great bit on this in the Times today, well worth a read, it certainly adds some degree of clarity to the situation!

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7076344.ece

 

[pnewton]

This entire situation is not a religious question, it is a moral and judicial question.

IF, and as a lifelong Catholic, I say that very seriously…IF the allegations of cover ups and participation in moving pedophiles are proven to be true, and include Pope Benedict, then this Pope has a Moral obligation to step down.

With that last line, it becomes a theological question. No, he has no such moral obligation. Even the worst allegation against him can only be a question of poor judgement prior to his papacy. It is not like he is accused of molesting anyone or even being the bishop over such a priest.

I think there is a real misunderstanding over who is responsible for prosecuting crime. It is not the Church. If a pedophile goes free, and the evidence is available, then the civil authorities bear the responsibility. If there is not complaining witnesses, then the victims who choose silence bear a burdern of responsibility. The Church deals with the sin and with the soul.

 

[mlund]

The article states something along the lines that they (the authorities) ignored the issue (article states something like “got a pass”).

“he pointed out that the Vatican was not forwarded the case until 1996, years after civil authorities had investigated the case and dropped it”

The guy had been reported previously. If new evidence was presented to Archbishop Weakland (nothing says that there was) it was Archbishop Weakland’s responsibility to report it to civil authorities. He only contacted Cardinal Ratzinger’s office with regard to the Canon Law process. The offender was unfit to stand trial. You can’t proceed. That’s due process, both in Canon Law trials and in Civil Law trials.

Unfortunately the Pope isn’t so innocent of not knowing though and should be rightfully in-depth investigated. If found guilty - let the justice system handle that sentence as well.

Um … the guy was already charged by the police. What do you expect the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to do, exactly?

It’s not just a “sin” - it’s a crime.

The priest should’ve been investigated, arrested, charged, tried, and convicted by the Government, certainly. They should’ve done it years earlier. They failed. The instances may have been beyond the statute of limitations. Maybe their police force was bad at their jobs. None of this makes then-Cardinal Ratzinger, across the ocean in Rome at a desk that deals with questions of Canon Law, responsible for or complicit in their failings. He didn’t impede them or knowingly choose not to bring evidence to them.

Former-Archbishop Weakland or his predecessor might be guilty of failing in their obligations to do so, though I can’t see direct evidence in the article to support such conjecture.

• Marty Lund

 

[markbrumbaugh]

As of last month, I have first hand knowlege that when a parishioner sends a written, snail mail letter to a Bishop and a Cardinal, their executive assistants open the mail and ask the accused priest if the letter is worthy of the Cardinal and/or Bishops attention, even though the letter itself is VERY clearly citing a problem with the priest. It was a problem I thought the Cardinal and his adjunct should know about and address.

As long as this bureaucratic process continues, the result will continue. Whether the Cardinal knew about my letter or not, he is responsible, if only for setting the expectations of his assistant.

All leaders should know their immediate subordinates are tempted to filter communications upwards. How they set expectations and followup, and how they react to bad news, is just as important and has the same effect of hiding or ignoring the misconduct.

I don’t know what the Pope did, but I do know how Cardinal DiNardo’s staff behaves.

 

[anode]

You seem to be missing a fundamental understanding of the article as well as the Church.

On the matter of the article: The priest in question was already facing criminal charges - hence the buried fact in the article that civil authorities dropped said charges.

On the matter of the Church: The Church does not prosecute members for crimes and sins. Excommunication and Laicization are not employed as a means of exacting retribution or justice for crimes.

I am

You’re ascribing motive without evidence to back it up.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not put the dying priest before Canon Law trial because he was unfit to stand trial. Cardinal Ratzinger did not cover up any abuse as the abuse he was notified of was prosecuted in the government’s criminal justice system.

You seem to have overlooked the part in the article where it states that the government’s criminal charges against the priest were dropped before this death. The proper charges were already brought to authorities for investigation.

• Marty Lund

We* don’t know *that the priest was unable to stand trial. He did die soon after–doesn’t say what–sudden heart attack? Did Ratzinger try to find out how ‘sick’ the priest really was? I doubt it. He could have instituted proceedings anyway, and the priest then died before they could have been completed. Ratzinger and the church would have looked a lot better.

I don’t know why Ratzinger chose to listen to the priest rather than his prosecutors, but he did, and it was a big mistake. I* attribute *to him trying to avoid scandal, as I can’t think otherwise why he should have made such a terrible error.

It doesn’t matter why the charges were dropped. There are many valid reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of the accusations.