A report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel, to be published tomorrow, will say that a former aide was put under "heavy" pressure to take the blame for an abuse scandal in the pope's former archdiocese of Munich and Freising. In 1980, while the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was archbishop, a priest known to be a paedophile was accepted into the archdiocese and, instead of being given therapy as planned, he was swiftly assigned to parish duties.
After the case was brought to light by the New York Times last month, Benedict's former vicar-general in Munich, Gerhard Gruber, accepted "full responsibility" for the decision.
According to Der Spiegel, citing sources very close to the 81-year-old prelate, Gruber received a string of telephone calls in which church officials "begged" him to take the blame. After he agreed, he was sent a fax containing the statement that he eventually issued, the weekly will say. The priest, Father Peter Hullermann, went on to commit an offence involving a boy for which he was tried and convicted.
In Spain, meanwhile, it was reported that a cardinal who congratulated a French bishop on not reporting a paedophile abbot said he had cleared his message of congratulations with the late pope, John Paul II. La Verdad, a newspaper in the southern city of Murcia, said that Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos told a press conference in the city on Friday that he wrote a letter to the bishop "after consulting the pope and showing it to him".
....
The statement was one of several indications that Benedict's supporters were shifting from defence to attack in their run-up to the fifth anniversary of the start of his papacy tomorrow.
When I read the article, I felt sick. The news is shocking, and yet, who believed that Benedict did not know about the priest in his archdiocese? Who didn't think that Vicar-General Gruber was falling on his sword for the sake of protecting the pope? I expect that what will come out in Der Speigel is only the beginning of a flood of revelations that will follow. Benedict and John Paul II are and have been bad news for the Roman Catholic Church. The one enabled the other, and now insiders in the know appear to have decided, "Enough is enough!"
Thanks to Cathy for the link.
"[W]ho believed that Benedict did not know about the priest in his archdiocese? Who didn't think that Vicar-General Gruber was falling on his sword for the sake of protecting the pope?"
ReplyDeleteUnlike most, I suppose, I have not "known" all along the facts behind these allegations. I truly believe that I have some obligation to base my opinions on evidence. The pope may be guilty, or he may be innocent of these charges. But I hope I have not become so cynical as to accept at face value every accusation made against every public figure.
Here there are at least two counterpoints to be considered. The charges here are anonymous. There is no accuser, no way to test the truth of his charges. For me, at least, that counts for something.
Secondly, it should be noted that the article won't come out and say that Gruber lied, only that he was pressured to issue a statement, by some person unnamed. There is no direct assertion that Benedict did the pressuring, or that the statement was untrue.
Again, I have no knowledge whether Benedict is guilty or innocent. I hope that he is innocent; I know that he could be guilty. I know that others' hopes and feelings run the opposite direction.
I can't help noting the irony that Benedict's itenerary next fall include the canonization of a Catholic priest best known for his despair at answering a charge that he was a "professor of lying," when "everyone knew" that the Catholic priesthood cared nothing for the truth.
There are a number of facts:
ReplyDelete1. There are hundreds if not thousands of children who were abused by priests in many different countries. Specifically, according to this post there was a boy who was abused in the archdiocese that Ratzinger had responsibility for after a pedophile priest was accepted into his archdiocese. We know this much to be factually true because the offending priest was tried and convicted.
2. Pope Benedict XVI was archbishop of Munich and Freising during the time a priest known to be a pedophile was taken into the same archdiocese and assigned parish duties. It was his responsibility to know what was happening in his archdiocese.
3. No matter who takes responsibility for what happened. It happened on Pope Benedict's watch.
4. He needs to take responsibility now. I do not know what the Pope knew at the time. I do that it was his responsibility to know. It was his moral obligation to know.
Can the hierarchy in the Catholic church not see the dominoes falling. Is there no one who will step into leadership, take responsibility and make a concrete plan that will prevent child abuse by priests on this scale from happening again.
Thank you, Two Auntees. I agree with all you've said.
ReplyDeleteRick, I did not believe that Benedict knew nothing of the abusive priest being taken in to his diocese, because as Cardinal Ratzinger he paid attention to details. He seemed to be a hands-on type (no pun intended).
I generally believe that name-calling is not the way to go, but it was not for nothing that Cardinal Ratzinger was called, "The Enforcer", "The Grand Inquisitor", and "God's Rottweiler", and by those inside the RCC. He has a history in this country, and many of his actions are not pretty to reflect upon.
I am not in the pope's head, nor am I in the vicar-general's head, and I don't know precisely what the pope knew and when he knew it regarding the abusive priest being allowed in his diocese, but from what I knew of Ratzinger's history, I doubted that he did not know. I could be wrong, but my default position is to be wary of defenses of the pope that seem unlikely.
Whether you believe me, or not, I take no pleasure in the present crisis in the RCC, partly because not only are the good people in the RCC smeared along with the transgressors, but also for the rather selfish reason that all Christians are smeared.
If, indeed, Gruber was not lying when he said the pope did not know, I wonder why he needed to be pressured to speak out.
It seems to me that people like Fr Hans Kung demonstrate, at least to me, the ideal posture in calling to account the hierarchy of his own church. Rick, you seem to be mainly in defensive mode. If the article in Der Speigal is proved to be untrue, will all be well for the pope? Will the scandal be over? What do you think the pope should do to turn the situation around?
There is more (knowledgeable RC coverage, though favorable to Benny) on Castrillón Hoyos's letter here. The letter, written to Pierre Pican, bishop of Bayeux, who had received a three month prison sentence (suspended, naturally) for concealing the crimes of an abuser priest in his diocese, states in part "You have acted well and I am pleased to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all other bishops in the world, preferred prison to denouncing his son and priest".
ReplyDeleteThis letter was written in September 2001. The scandal is grossly compounded by the fact that Pican, notwithstanding the conviction, remained as bishop of Bayeux until May of this year, when he resigned on reaching his 75th birthday.
This coming Saturday (April 24th) Castrillion is scheduled to celebrate a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form [i.e. Tridentine rite] next Saturday in Washington to honor the fifth anniversary of Ratzinger's inauguration as Pope.
On the bright side, some in the US RCC are getting it right. Check the video of the press conference given three days ago by Richard Stika, bishop of Knoxville in response to a newly-revealed case of clerical sexual abuse. The video is long, but listen, at least, to the bishop's opening statement.
ReplyDeleteThe story in the Observer also mentioned that the pope received an "unexpected and unconditional endorsement" from Silvio Berlusconi's government:
ReplyDeleteIn greetings sent to the pontiff on his 83rd birthday on Friday, the Italian government blamed the scandal on an "unspeakable campaign of slander against the church and the pope"
So there you have it - all these people claiming to be victims of child abuse are just having a go at the poor old Pope for no reason at all. Like you do.
In fact though if the RCC is moving from defence to attack mode, as the story suggested, this may be the sort of tactic they plan to try to use in future.
Lapin, I watched Bishop Stika's press conference. He seems sincere and willing to take responsibility to move forward in an honest and transparent manner.
ReplyDeleteAs for Castrillón Hoyos and Pican, they believe it's better to take care of the abuser "son" rather the children.
Cathy, I'd hardly consider an accolade from the Berlusconi government a good thing, but perhaps the pope is pleased.
ReplyDelete"What do you think the pope should do to turn the situation around?"
ReplyDeleteHe should probably focus on determining whether the changes that were instituted in the United States six years ago have been effective, and to what extent they can be applied elsewhere.
He needs to determine upon what level, administratively, these issues can best be addressed and enforced. Some permanent office in each diocese might be created to review and evaluate clergy screening, background checks, and enforcement, with reporting to a corresponding office in Rome.
He should continue to meet with victims, as on Malta this weekend.
A synod of bishops would probably be a good idea. I don't see the need for an ecumenical council.
Most who are calling for one are those like Fr. Kung, who reject the teaching of the last two. Why should we expect a third to be treated with any more respect by the dissenters than the last two?
If I were the pope I'd resign. Settle down in some idyllic Bavarian monastery with my books and memories and spend my last years in peace. Not that that would contribute one iota to helping anyone--it's just what I would do.
Rick, thank you for your thoughtful answer. I like some of your suggestions.
ReplyDeleteA synod of bishops would probably be a good idea. I don't see the need for an ecumenical council.
Why just bishops? Godly wisdom is not limited to bishops. Priests and laity have richness in wisdom to contribute, and the Vatican would do well to hear their thoughts and share responsibility with them.
And why not ecumenical? The entire Body of Christ gathered together offers a clearer path to arriving at truth than just the one body part.
I've mentioned that I think the pope should resign, but I've changed my mind, because I don't believe the RCC would change all that much if he did. If Benedict wanted to retreat to a monastery, he could call it a retirement, instead of a resignation.