His Pedophile-Covering Holiness Benedict XVI
29 Mar '10 18:07For those not intrepid enough to traverse to the spirituality forum, there was a parallel thread raised there, here are some comments from one of our catholic contributors. I reproduce it here, for your perusal and comments, it begins
A little perspective, please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the priest did not belong to the archdiocese of Munich and so archbishop Ratzinger was not his superior; the parents themselves decided not to contact police about this issue; the decision for the priest to return to ministry was made by the vicar-general. The psychiatrist who counseled this priest never informed Ratzinger himself about the unsuitability of the priest for ministry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
I have already gone to great detail to explain this one too. Allegations did not come to Cardinal Ratzinger until 1996. The allegations did not immediately concern sexual abuse but solicitation in the confessional. These allegations resulted in an immediate trial. Contrary to the article, the Vatican did not sit on the case. By paper's own admission, a trial was immediately instigated. This trial would be halted two years later ]because the priest was about to die.
It seems in this case, the NY has misdirected its criticisms. The archbishop of Milwaukee should be held accountable here, not the Vatican. The archbishop had undeniable evidence of abuse over three long decades which he failed to report. This is the same man who funneled money to silence his gay lover from speaking out. This is the same man who was forced to resign because of his incompetent mismanagement of accusations of sexual abuse. Why the NY fails to mention this only proves their determination to implicate the Pope.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
No doubt Pope Benedict has to explain his handling of the Munich case. Was there a failure? Yes. It is quite clear that he knew that the priest was a sex-abuser and, even though the diocese of Munich was quite large and had many hundreds of priests, his behaviour seems negligent. The Pope should have inquired about this priest; he should have demanded reports about this priest's progress; he should also have been informed about the decision for the priest to return to ministry. However, as it is, it does not seem more than an administrative oversight. The Pope seems to have delegated duties that he should rightfully have overseen more carefully.
For a more balanced perspective of Benedict's handling of sexual abuse claims, there is this column from the same paper:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger actually made it easier to deal with sex abuse allegations. Firstly, in 2001, with the publication of Gravioribus Delictis, he extended the statute of limitations so that victims would have more time to report allegations of abuse. Secondly, he made it compulsory for all bishops to report allegations of abuse to the Vatican. Thirdly, he made is easier to defrock priests. For 60% of cases, priests could be defrocked without need for canonical trial. Benedict is not perfect but his role in the Vatican gives a positive picture of his attempts to deal with sex abuse claims.
A little perspective, please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the priest did not belong to the archdiocese of Munich and so archbishop Ratzinger was not his superior; the parents themselves decided not to contact police about this issue; the decision for the priest to return to ministry was made by the vicar-general. The psychiatrist who counseled this priest never informed Ratzinger himself about the unsuitability of the priest for ministry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
I have already gone to great detail to explain this one too. Allegations did not come to Cardinal Ratzinger until 1996. The allegations did not immediately concern sexual abuse but solicitation in the confessional. These allegations resulted in an immediate trial. Contrary to the article, the Vatican did not sit on the case. By paper's own admission, a trial was immediately instigated. This trial would be halted two years later ]because the priest was about to die.
It seems in this case, the NY has misdirected its criticisms. The archbishop of Milwaukee should be held accountable here, not the Vatican. The archbishop had undeniable evidence of abuse over three long decades which he failed to report. This is the same man who funneled money to silence his gay lover from speaking out. This is the same man who was forced to resign because of his incompetent mismanagement of accusations of sexual abuse. Why the NY fails to mention this only proves their determination to implicate the Pope.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
No doubt Pope Benedict has to explain his handling of the Munich case. Was there a failure? Yes. It is quite clear that he knew that the priest was a sex-abuser and, even though the diocese of Munich was quite large and had many hundreds of priests, his behaviour seems negligent. The Pope should have inquired about this priest; he should have demanded reports about this priest's progress; he should also have been informed about the decision for the priest to return to ministry. However, as it is, it does not seem more than an administrative oversight. The Pope seems to have delegated duties that he should rightfully have overseen more carefully.
For a more balanced perspective of Benedict's handling of sexual abuse claims, there is this column from the same paper:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger actually made it easier to deal with sex abuse allegations. Firstly, in 2001, with the publication of Gravioribus Delictis, he extended the statute of limitations so that victims would have more time to report allegations of abuse. Secondly, he made it compulsory for all bishops to report allegations of abuse to the Vatican. Thirdly, he made is easier to defrock priests. For 60% of cases, priests could be defrocked without need for canonical trial. Benedict is not perfect but his role in the Vatican gives a positive picture of his attempts to deal with sex abuse claims.
Back to Top