What Ratzinger knew, and when he knew it…
Turns out he knew more than the Vatican or the Munich archdiocese averred, according to the latest in a series of revelations that are growing worse by the day, if not the hour. Here’s the NY Times account:
MUNICH — The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.
What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear. But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.
When they update the text books on how not to respond to crises, this will be prominent. John Allen got it exactly right a few days ago in a column titled, “Memo to Munich: Get it out now!”
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, asserted that “someone is trying to undermine” the trust Catholics have in the church.
Yes, the trust in the hierarchy (whom Cardinal Bertone tellingly refers to as “the Church”) is being undermined. But it’s being undermined by the hierarchy.
John Allen is right that the Archdiocese of Munich and Friesling should promptly get everything out in the open. But I am sad to say I expect them to drag their feet and extend the painful torture of this crisis for quite a while. Such is the nature of clericalism, to defend themselves to the end no matter what the cost to the faithful.
The Munich officials and the Curia won’t listen to John Allen because he has not been named titular bishop of some mythical place and installed in a Roman palazzo. Because only then would they consider him a member of the Church. And that attitude is the root of all our problems.
Mr. Gibson:
Aren’t you jumping to conclusions just a tad? Funny that you failed to quote this part of the story:
Church officials defend Benedict by saying the memo was routine and was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” according to the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese. But Father Wolf said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.
Anyone who has worked in an Archdiocesan chancery knows that there are plenty of memos that an Archbishop get copied on that never land on his desk. It is still a little early to say what exactly Card. Ratzinger knew.
If I was a leader, I would make dare sure any memo of this type no matter how trivial would land on my desk and I would deal with it.
That fact that it may not have been is a telling example of exactly what was wrong and continues to be wrong about clerical leadership.
Just because it wasn’t does not excuse Ratzinger’s poor judgment or lack of leadership. It speaks to the very root of the problem.
Corrected URL for the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
How do you say: “It’s time to resign” in Latin?
Depressing how much of the X-Files terminology works for the Vatican … trust no one, plausible deniability, deceive, inveigle and obfuscate. Does the pope smoke?
I’ve got to agree with Seamus on this. The use of language in the article Mr Gibson has I think swayed you but there is in fact nothing of any substance in it. We simply can’t be sure what he knew because no one knows if he read the memo. The NY Times says he was informed but there’s evidence to back up the assertion. In any case Father Fahr misinformed Ratzinger about the priest and so was therefore misled.
Also, as pointed out before, Ratzinger only approved the request that he receive treatment in his diocese, nothing more. Father Gruber has already admitted that he made the decision to return the priest to full duties. Interestingly Gruber wasn’t at the meeting to approve Hullermann’s stay in the diocese. I’m starting to think that this was all just a very sad and tragic case of a number of people including Ratzinger, of paying insufficient attention to a dangerous priest. Damian Thompson has put it well, if Ratzinger can be accused of anything in this case it’s that he wasn’t vigilant enough. Certainly from the minutes of the meeting on January 15th 1980, he was very busy and I expect that was so most of the time, for different reasons of course.
The above should be..
“The NY Times says he was informed but there’s no evidence to back up the assertion. In any case Father Fahr misinformed Ratzinger about the priest and so was therefore misled”
The link embedded in the original post is now fixed, thanks for your patience.
As regards the amount of smoke in the gun here, yes, there is a possibility that the final memo did not reach Ratzinger’s desk — but it could have and should have, and there are renewed doubts from those involved about whether and how much they discussed Hullermann’s reassignment with Ratzinger. That goes against the story the Munich archdiocese and the Vatican painted earlier, and raises questions of credibility and how much more will become known.
Moreover, the story makes it clear that Archbp Ratzinger presided at the meeting, which generated the reassignment memo five days later, at which Hullerman’s disposition was discussed and that Hullermann’s transfer was okayed at that meeting presided over by Ratzinger.
As the story says, it was a busy meeting, and one could spin all sorts of somewhat plausible scenarios about the pro forma nature of such meetings and personnel decisions. But still, it directly contradicts what the church authorities have been saying.
None of these details are seismic on their own; they are almost worse, in that they are a drip drip drip of regular small revelations, each of which keeps the story alive and each of which erodes the credibility of the church authorities. They need to get the story straight, and get it out there. Like the Band-Aid, pull it off fast. The pain is brief and less.
Benedict’s silence speaks for itself.
The mentioned memo is old news her in Germany. An article from two weeks ago:
“Möglicherweise sei Ratzinger die Dienstanweisung Grubers an den pädophilen Priester zugestellt worden, wieder in der Gemeinde zu arbeiten. Man könne aber nicht davon ausgehen, dass Ratzinger sie persönlich geprüft habe, sagte der Sprecher.”
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,683332,00.html
Anonymous, thanks for that: Is there anything in the German coverage that is not in the Times coverage?
@ David Gibson:
No. Only the case of Fr. Hullermann (Munich) and Fr. Murphy (Milwaukee) were covered in the German press. So far there are no other accusations against Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI personally.
Erzbistumssprecher Bernhard Kellner sagte, Gruber habe den Beschluss eigenmächtig gefasst. Möglicherweise sei Ratzinger die Dienstanweisung Grubers an den pädophilen Priester zugestellt worden, wieder in der Gemeinde zu arbeiten. Man könne aber nicht davon ausgehen, dass Ratzinger sie persönlich geprüft habe, sagte der Sprecher.
Bernhard Kellner, spokesman for the archdiocese, said that Gruber had made the decision by himself. Ratzinger may possibly have been responsible for reviewing Gruber’s disposition of the pedophile priest in the parish. However, one cannot conclude from this that Ratzinger personally checked it, according to the spokesman.
I think this is old news. I’ve been checking kath.net for over a week now and nothing about the memo has come up. Presumably these details have been reported in Germany, it obviously didn’t stir the pot very much.
He presided at the meeting but he did not approve of anything more than that Hullermann be treated in his diocese. Given that Father Gruber wasn’t at the Jan 15th meeting and that he wouldn’t have been as clear on all the details as he might have been had he attended, it is not I think inconceivable that Father Fahr’s glowing report moved him enough to consider returning the priest to full duties, even against the stated course of action of his boss. Certainly we know that Cardinal Ratzinger approved nothing more than that he undergo treatment in his diocese. Would not the calling of another meeting have been necessary to approve anything further? Even if not, there’s no evidence to suggest that Ratzinger gave Hullermann the thumbs up vis-a-vis his being around children again.
It is quite clear from the article that Father Fahr not only misinformed and misled Cardinal Ratzinger but also the rest of his co-workers, which then presumably had the effect of creating a sense of ambiguity in relation to Hullermann.
So I imagine Father Gruber probably thought to himself, “Cardinal Ratzinger is a forgiving man, I’m sure he’d give Father Hullermann another chance if he had the time to assess him.”
I can’t be certain about the above but I consider it likely.
I think the thing to remember is that it’s not the crime (or mistaken judgment or whatever) as much as the cover up that undermines trust and leads to scandal.
You’re right David, of course. The Munich chancery was a big place with lots of staff. The Essen priest, Fr Malangre, wrote a letter explaining Fr Hullermann’s issues in coded terms only. With that, Fr Fahr, his Munich counterpart, inexplicably prepared a glowing report presenting Fr Hullermann to the Munich staff. The staff meeting naturally approved the transfer, and the vicar general, Fr Gruber, who had not been at the meeting and only had Fr Fahr’s report to go by, immediately assigned Fr Hullermann to a parish as a routine decision that he didn’t bring to the attention of the Archbishop in any special way – his memo was probably never even given to Abp Ratzinger by his staff. The therapist wrote letters that didn’t get read and expressed concerns to bishop Heinrich Graf von Soden-Fraunhofen, who inexplicably dismissed them without relaying them to anyone.
Now many of the protagonists are dead or senile, but the picture is clear: Archbishop Ratzinger was surrounded by incompetent subordinates and staff who misled him, gave him bad advice, made decisions without consulting him, and withheld information from him. In any case, Abp Ratzinger is blameless.
There hasn’t been a cover-up. Are we right to use the word cover-up in the first place to describe what happened? If for instance we had sufficient evidence from other sources that such and such had happened and then discovered that the files the Church are in possession of had been “cleaned” up or destroyed, then sure, we could label it a cover-up, pro-active in relation to the concealment of information by any means necessary. You’d be able to say “Look, there is nothing here where there should be something, and why? – well we’ve a good idea” But this clearly isn’t what happened in the Church. I’m reminded of the statement made about an easily caught thief, “You give criminals a bad name!”.
Still, when two separate negative stories about the Church and Pope makes top billing two days running on the Fox News website, you know you’ve got a major problem, for whatever reason.
“Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J., questioned by journalists concerning a new New York Times article, which appeared on 26 March and concerns the period in which Cardinal Ratzinger was archbishop of Munich, referred them to this morning’s public denial in a communique published by the archdiocese of Munich, which reads:
“The article in the New York Times contains no new information beyond that which the archdiocese has already communicated concerning the then archbishop’s knowledge of the situation of Father H.”
Thus the archdiocese confirms the position, according to which the then archbishop had no knowledge of the decision to reassign Father H. to pastoral activities in a parish.
It rejects any other version of events as mere speculation.
The then vicar general, Msgr. Gerhard Gruber, has assumed full responsibility for his own erroneous decision to reassign Father H. to pastoral activity.”
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/25326.php?index=25326&lang=en
Jsnuary 24, 2008: Pope Benedict XVI today said the media were too often used irresponsibly to spread “violence and vulgarity” and impose “distorted models” of social and family life. He urged the world’s communicators instead to adopt what he called “info-ethics”.
In a message for the Roman Catholic Church’s World Communications Day, Pope Benedict said the media often sought to create reality rather than report it, with agendas dictated by “the dominant interests” of the day. “This is what happens when communication is used for ideological purposes or for the aggressive advertising of consumer products. When communication loses its ethical underpinning and eludes society’s control, it ends up no longer taking into account the centrality and inviolable dignity of the human person” he said.
He added “For this reason it is essential that social communications should assiduously defend the person and fully respect human dignity. Many people now think there is a need, in this sphere, for ‘info-ethics’, just as we have bioethics in the field of medicine and in scientific research linked to life.” He said the media “in order to attract listeners and increase the size of audiences, do not hesitate at times to have recourse to vulgarity and violence and overstep the mark”.
How do you say: “It’s time to resign” in Latin?
Promoveatur ut moveatur. Promote him so that he can be moved. Unfortunately, the only way to go is down.
All of a sudden we are saying the brillian Ratzinger is clueless. Quite a stretch. The man who managed the abuse crisis and reserved the right to final decision to Rome now does not know or was not aware. The kicker is this priest still was around until a few years ago.
But we are missing the point if we do not see this as a systemic problem. Father knows best and the laity obeys. This is truly a problem of empire. As the cogent article on Romero in the current Commonweal points out the Church is the third power along with the military and elite in South America (and in many Catholic countries) while the people in the pews are encouraged to accept their lot and hope to the next life while the bishops enjoy the trappings of this life.
Donohue is a paid pr person. Dolan continues the empire. Etc. Jesus had no home. These guys have palace. One third of the world does not have decent drinking water and the hierarchy’s number one issue is abortion.
They have gone astray.
Amen, Kathy. The media are in fact fulfilling the idea B16 sets out here, which is to the benefit of the church and society, if not the Holy Father’s.
David, as far as cover-up I was referring to actions after an event, as evidence becomes known and then efforts are taken to conceal that evidence or other evidence, or to hedge the truth as much as possible.
In light of the current documentation, that Cardinal Ratzinger presided at a meeting discussing Hullermann’s transfer and approving it, the original statement by Munich (backed by the Vatican) no longer seems operable.
I think the larger issue here is that this is not happening in a vacuum. These defenses, and atacks on the media, are the same ones that accompanied stories on abuse in the US since the 1980s, and then the Globe’s stories in 2002. Not only were those critics proved wrong, but the media and the victims — who were also vilified by many church officials and the church’s defenders — were the ones who were on the side of justice, and of truth. The institutional church was not. If the media had not done its job in the face of church criticism, the church would be in even worse straits today.
No one can approach claims by the hierarchy on this issue with anything less than agnosticism heavily inflected with skepticism.
I’m greatly interested in Medjugorje even it is still at this time controversial. I reckon it will be approved eventually. I was just thinking there that with the apparition to Marija yesterday it’s a pity she didn’t ask Mary about the Pope’s troubles at the moment, grave troubles. In all the 29 years that this has been going on, the Pope, be it John Paul II or Benedict have never been mentioned in any of the messages, which is in some way I think evidence in its favour. Still I really do think that the current Pope needs help. I’m beginning to physically feel pain reading the headlines, I get a chill going down my spine when I think about all he must be going through and how in fact nothing less is demanded of us all in our suffering in this life. Didn’t Teresa of Avila say about God “If this is the way you treat your friends, it’s no wonder you have so few!”
From a Medjugorje forum..
“Marija came on air (Radio Maria) at 21.00h and gave Our Lady’s message. She said Our Lady was dressed all in Gold on this, the Solemnity of the Annunciation. As always, she delivered the message first in Italian and then in Croatian. She laughed and said that Our Lady can speak both. She then invited everyone to join her in praying the Magnificat. There followed a short conversation with Padre Livio, much of which I couldn’t understand but it touched on the commission. One of her sons read Mirjana’s message from the 2nd March and also announced one or two forthcoming events at Medjugorje, which are already known from the Parish website. She ended by saying that Paolo was on his way to Medjugorje and I think she said they would be there for Easter. If anyone else heard this and can fill in the gaps or correct any errors in my translation, please do. I recommend this monthly prayer vigil (time zones permitting), as it is always very beautiful. It consists in praying the entire rosary and ends with Benediction. Each month it comes from a different part of Italy.”
I’d keep your eye on Medjugorje over the next few years; something tells me that it’s going to prove decisive for the survival of the faith in Europe and the rest of the world.
My favorite part of this morning’s NYT story:
“He dropped another clear hint by suggesting that Father Hullermann could teach religion ‘at a girls’ school.’”
———
(When I was a student at a girls’ school in the late fifties, we had a few priests as religion teachers who were VERY ODD. I won’t go into detail, as it would sound unbelievable. At the same time, at my parish, a newly-ordained priest had been placed in charge of the CYC. He used to call me (and other kids) urging us to attend the meetings. I was too young to understand why I had a creepy-crawly feeling whenever I spoke to him. Now that I’m old, and he’s notorious, I know why.)
Dueling Catholics:
EJ Dionne weighs in:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502676.html
And at America’s blog, Michael Sean Winters has a quite different view:
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2683
“Shame on the NYTimes”
When it comes to a battle between the Vatican (Not the US Church by itself) and the media in all its forms, I’d go with the Vatican.
As for the New York Times, in order to stay afloat last year the paper accepted $250 million or so from the friend and main financial backer of Fr. Marcial Maciel, World’s richest man, Carlos Slim. That would be worth investigating.
David G,
It depends on what you mean by ethics. Some people might be getting all Ben Bradlee’d up because they’ve never liked this pope. Rather cynical of me to say, I realize…
If Commoweal bloggers want to see a real scandal, google Operation Ore. Here is a snip from Scotland’s Herald from several years ago:
OPERATION ORE…PAEDOPHLIE COVER UP
Operation Ore, the United Kingdom’s most thorough and comprehensive police investigation of crimes against children, seems to have uncovered more than is politically acceptable at the highest reaches of the British elite.
In the 19th of January edition of The Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay sensationally reported that senior members of Tony Blair’s government were being investigated for paedophilia and the “enjoyment” of child-sex pornography:
“The Sunday Herald has also had confirmed by a very senior source in British intelligence that at least one high-profile former Labour Cabinet minister is among Operation Ore suspects. The Sunday Herald has been given the politician’s name but, for legal reasons, can not identify the person.
There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects. The intelligence officer said that a ‘rolling’ Cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the government if
arrests occur.”
The allegations are the most serious yet levelled at an administration that prides itself on the inclusion in its ranks of a high quota of controversial and flamboyant homosexual men, and whose First Lady, Cherie Blair, has come under the spotlight for her indulgence in pagan rituals that resemble Freemasonic rites. Unconfirmed information also suggests that the term “former Labour Cabinet minister” is misleading and that the investigation has identified a surprisingly large number of alleged paedophiles at the highest level of British government, including one very senior cabinet minister (known to Propaganda Matrix.com).
“Now many of the protagonists are dead or senile, but the picture is clear: Archbishop Ratzinger was surrounded by incompetent subordinates and staff who misled him, gave him bad advice, made decisions without consulting him, and withheld information from him. In any case, Abp Ratzinger is blameless.”
That one deserves a LOL……….if it was not said in jest, then Benedict is at fault for his management at least.
I’d keep your eye on Medjugorje over the next few years; something tells me that it’s going to prove decisive for the survival of the faith in Europe and the rest of the world.
David,
The survival of what faith? Surely not the Catholic faith.
I am not a big fan of apparitions, but if you take Fatima or Lourdes, and compare the subsequent lives of those directly involved there to the lives of those directly involved in Medjugorje, they are in marked contrast.
The latest message alleged to come from the Virgin Mary is
Has there ever been a memorable line in one of the messages? Anything comparable to the Magnificat, for example?
The anonymous posters here ‘protecting’ the Pope is a sad state of affairs. The Pope at 83 should resign pronto.. saying ‘ he wants to spend time with his family’. He is not central to my faith. and should not be central to any thinking Catholics faith, So next week we have another story.. why??? because we know there were absolutley more abuse cases under his and his brothers watch.. we know only one in four cases are ever revealed. It’s hard for life long Catholics, raised as we were in such a triumphalist Catholic culture, to say it but the answer folks is Pope …. Go Go Go Go Go Away.so millions will stay
The barely restrained glee with which some here have greeted these sad developments is really reprehensible. For those few, this doesn’t seem to be about justice at all, but about settling old scores that have nothing to do with sexual abuse. The coded language gives it away.
The barely restrained glee with which some here have greeted these sad developments is really reprehensible.
Anonymous,
I am a little confused. Are you the same Anonymous who left the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church, urged Catholics to leave, and said, “Stay, and you will be condoning the systemic rape and torture of children. It’s your choice.”
The “facts” offered in the NYTimes stories about Ratzinger’s office in Munich would hardly count as circumstantial evidence in a U.S. court. That doesn’t mean that Ratzinger shouldn’t resign or that German church authorities shouldn’t get everything out. Or that the Vatican doesn’t need a wholesale cleaning out. But the frenzy strikes me as going beyond what any of us know…perhaps more than Ratzinger actually knows, and frankly what the NYT knows.
Even if we grant (Supposing something comes out) that Pope Benedict has made mistakes in the past, I would see no reason why he should resign. When Peter betrayed Christ, he didn’t send him back to his old life in Galilee, no, rather he re-commissioned him. I’m sick and tired of demands being made all the time for people to resign, all in the name of “accountability” when what they really mean in most cases is that they want to exercise power over the accused for no other reason than to feel in control.
Can you imagine someone on an airplane demanding in the name of the other passengers the resignation of the only pilot on board?
“We’re going down but we’re going down with our heads held high.” Indeed..
Pope Benedict should apply to himself the assessment he gave of Irish bishops in his letter: “Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. ”
And he should apply to himself the remedy that he advocated: “Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will… This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal.”
I do not know whether that would be sufficient, but it is a necessary first step. We’re waiting!
I don’t think there’s any reason (as yet) Ratzinger should resign or consider it. I don’t think anyone would really hold him that accountable for one episode three decades ago. What is problematic is the attempts to spin it or cover up facts, and the near-hysterical attacks coming from Vatican leaders and others against the media.
I’d disagree with Peggy on the NYT (and other outlets) — I think the journalism is impeccable, the facts are in order, and each story is carefully framed. Each one advances the story, and smokes out a bit more of the truth, the wider picture. This is the kind of daily investigating that brought the scandals in the United States to light. I think the alternative, which is keeping that stuff under wraps is, well, not good. Paul Moses would be a good authority on the quality of the journalism, I think.
PS: My favorite defense of Benedict so far is from his friend and co-author, the Italian senator and atheist defender of Christendom, Marcello Pera:
http://www.zenit.org/article-28748?l=english
I ‘m late to this (time zone difference) but the column by Mr. Dionne hit the nail on the head.
The problem, exemplified by David and Anobnymous here, is the same PR approach that is undermining the moral authority in Rome.
More than a Pope resigning, I think the issue ties back to post VII and afterward where the forces of reaction wanted to regain and centralize curial and Vatican power through a strict Romanita.
Any hint of scandal/weakness had to be put down.
In the early 80′s Law and friends (still much in power though Law resigned in Boston) shot down Doyle.
Depite some horrific happenings in the interim, it was only the horrors of Boston exposed in 2002 that caused many to open up and see how deeply the Church was invested in its own power/institution.
Now the matter of events in Ireland (well documented) abd Germany (where the preponderance of evidence poiunts to the current Pope as a Bishop then acting in the same protective ways) underscores the weak value structure of the governance in our Church.
Maybe David is “sick and tired” of hearing about demands for resignations, but those demands only keep coming because folks weren’t accountable (despite Bertone’s statement)
and continue on with, as Dionne notes, with words.
The Pope’s resignation would be a major gesture but it’s the sytemic problem – including the view that the hierarchy neds to be defended at all costs – that’s sapping the credibility lifeblood out of the Church!
Are the chickens coming home to roost? Benedict gave Cardinal Law that prestigious job in Rome with comfortable trimmings. Not a negative word was said about Law at the time.
Now are we going to make the NY Times the issue rather than Benedict? It is really difficult to deny that this is huge. And Benedict is quiet. There is no yea yea and no no in his language. This is leadership? This is witness?
David Gibson: “I think the journalism is impeccable…” David, I think we both know journalism is never impeccable… As they say it is the first draft of history and the first draft is almost always rewritten.
David Nickol,
No, not the same Anonymous, which should have been obvious.
When Peter betrayed Christ, he didn’t send him back to his old life in Galilee, no, rather he re-commissioned him.
Yes, but Peter was deeply sorry for what he had done.
David G, thanks for those links to the Dionne and Winters pieces – both are outstanding.
It seems to me that the NYT, on occasion, gets its head out over its skis. I’m thinking of the story they broke during the last presidential campaign about McCain and the female lobbyist. Maybe every news organizaation is prone ot it, though?
I don’t think the Pope should resign for any reason. If people choose to quit the Church, so be it. If they do so as a “protest” over being led by a fellow human being, well then it wasn’t worth their while being in the Church in the first place. Only a genuine Catholic will stay no matter what and that’s exactly how it should be.
“Yes, but Peter was deeply sorry for what he had done.”
Well Mr Nickol, I’ll leave that between you and God on the day of Judgement.
I think any news organization will make mistakes, and oftentimes bad ones — like that McCain story. Same with the institutional church. But that doesn’t make facts in every story suspect, and how any institution deals with its mistakes is key. The NYT luckily, finally — and only after its own scandals in the first decade of this millennium — got an ombudsman.
So I think it’s important to weigh the merits of any story.
No, not the same Anonymous, which should have been obvious.
Might I suggest you use your real name, or at least a unique name? I don’t know what the point of using names here is if people are going to log on as “Anonymous.” I don’t think the burden should be placed on readers here to figure out which messages come from one Anonymous, which from another Anonymous, which from a third, and so on.
“It seems to me that the NYT, on occasion, gets its head out over its skis.”
I think their head is right where they want it to be. Aside from their primary activity of political advocacy, they are secondarily in the entertainment business. They are correctly just giving their audience what they are paying to see.
As they say it is the first draft of history and the first draft is almost always rewritten.
Journalists may be writing “the first draft of history,” but I don’t think it’s fair to judge journalism by what is later written as history. Good journalism is good journalism, whatever may wind up in the history books later.
“I don’t think the burden should be placed on readers here to figure out which messages come from one Anonymous, which from another Anonymous, which from a third, and so on.”
I agree.
Claire, in your 8:00 a.m. post you declare “In any case, Abp Ratzinger is blameless.”
Not so, he is the one responsible for having incompetents advising him. He may not be directly responsible for this very bad decision but he is not blameless. He had it within his power to ensure his advisors/subordinates were competent.
That he did not do so indicates where the root of the problem lies.
One can only conclude, and there is plenty of evidence to conclude it, that the situation remains thus.
John, I was trying to use irony. I agree with you that he exhibited either bad judgment (if he was directly involved) or bad leadership (if he let his subordinates do it).
I think Davis should stop dictating what a “good Catholoic” is.
There is only one Just Judge.
That kind of approach by David is symbolic of what’s wrong in the PR machine on this.
It’s too bad because the Church continues to be torn up by governance problems.
The posters here talking about ‘what did the NYT know and when did they know is’ wrong question.. off message.
It’s Pearl Harbor and you guys are discussing which Japnaese carrier most likely did the planes come from. Do you want to see a ‘tell’ stare you in the face?. CNN had a three Catholic laity panel today to discuss the crisis.. to counter Wild Bill Donahue’s rant yesterday saying Rabbis and teachers abuse too. [PHEW] The CNN ‘tell’ was ..not one Catholic cleric on the panel..maybe CNN lost the ‘ ususl suspects’ list or the clerics were all feeding the poor..
Sorry Claire, I missed it. I was playing catch up but after reading your post skipped to the bottom and made the reply. Then went back and after reading your later posts went back to the 8:00 one as I was left a little confused.
I agree with EJDionne’s conclusions but I regret to say I hold out little hope.
Peggy Steinfels used the word “frenzy” in one of her comments. It is a word that has come to my mind several times these past days.
Sandro Magister reports that in today’s issue of the left-leaning (and impeccably “laicista”) Italian daily, “La Repubblica,” so eager was the commentator to celebrate the credentials of Archbishop Weakland that he seems to have confused him with Cardinal Bernardin — including his lamented demise.
See: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/
Jimmy Mac, thank you for asking the question.
Bill Mazzella, thank you for the translation.
Ed Gleason, thank you for noting the big picture that most of our fellow threaders are ignoring.
And, Anonymous Defender of the Status Quo, thank you for showing us the enabling mindset typical of any sick, dysfunctional family/institutional system.
The bitter irony in all this mess is that the Church of Rome has a pope hellbent on preserving the very cultural artifacts, beliefs, and underlying assumptions that lie at the very heart of this institutional mess.
Those who can’t (or refuse to) learn the lessons of history and psychology………..
All in all what words can we use to describe this. It is sad and revealing. But there is prodigious suffering in this world that we hardly get around to. The Vatican in its gilded surroundings is getting what it may deserve. But those little boys and girls being sold by their parents, the five million babies who die each year lacking necessities not luxuries, are at the heart of Jesus Christ. They have no pr machine, few Catholics who will defend them when they are right never mind when they are wrong. Without a doubt the last shall be first and the first last.
John Allen’s column is posted, and his context seems to me to be very useful:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
Here’s his walkaway:
“Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict’s handling of the crisis — in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope — is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it’s important to keep the record straight.”
Latest from John Allen: http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
He calls for perspective and highlights some of his points from his earlier article.
Think it is a waste of time to focus on one or two known pedophiles currently revealed. Would suggest that AB Ratzinger managed 1,000+ priests for almost 5 years. Using a reasonable standard, you can expect that there were roughly 40 German priests in his archdiocesed who acted inappropriately during that period. Eventually, this information will become public. It is also reasonable to suggest that AB Ratzinger handled these cases just as any other bishop in 1980 – therapy, reassignment, transfer, forgiveness, no oversight, secrecy, no police.
But using Allen’s three points – I am still confused by the contractions if not out right hyposcrisy:
a) his motu proprio of 2001 IN PRINCIPLE did not restrict any bishop from reporting to civilian authorities……what does this mean? seems like a new twist in interpretation…sure was not the interpretation or action plans of the Irish or American bishops?
b) he may rightly clarify the department heads, roles, and responsibility – but, let’s face it, Ratzinger was over the CDW for 20 years……and appears to have come to an honest realization very late…..20 years. Did he go blind, deaf, dumb during those 20 years when there were some fairly horrendous cases going public?
c) Allen makes it appear that Ratzinger had to convert himself first; then swim upstream against the curia and JPII, in order to begin to turn the ship of church. That is really a stretch for those of us who have been dealing with cases, victims, etc. since the 1980′s.
d) He goes into the stats from Scicluna about how many case went to church trial; how many left to individual bishops, etc. Think this misses the point when you realize that these est. 3,000 cases are just a tip of the iceberg. As Allen says: “Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict’s handling of the crisis — in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope — is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it’s important to keep the record straight”.
His last line is the most important and will continue to haunt the church until there is full and open accountability.
Bill M said (with tongue firmly planted in cheek): “All of a sudden we are saying the brilliant Ratzinger is clueless.”
We, therefore, cannot be talking about the ultimate micro-manager, The Grand Inquisitor himself! From what I have read about Ratzinger, in his times as Abp of Munich, head of the CDF and now His Supreme Ever-Watchful, Always Pontificating Holiness, this man looks to be sure that each “i” is dotted and each “t” is crossed!
Paul L re: Operation Ore: yes, the scandals in the Blair government are similar situations. However, no governmental agency, leader nor Grand Poo-Bah even remotely lays claim to the One True Church established by Christ and headed by the Vicar of Christ. Methinks there is a wee bit of difference here, with resulting expectations of a slightly different conduct, veracity and adherence to the Gospels. But, then, I could be wrong.
David said: “Can you imagine someone on an airplane demanding in the name of the other passengers the resignation of the only pilot on board?” Therein lies the problem. To treat a pops as “the only pilot on board” reduces his role to that of a manager rather than a shepherd acting in the name of the true Pilot of us all.
Bill M said: “Now are we going to make the NY Times the issue rather than Benedict?” Of course. If it ever becomes known that a pope might have a bit of clay under his toenails, then the entire credibility of the Catholic Christian claims to any and everything are blown to bits. As the pope goes, so goes Catholicism en toto. Right.
Claire said: “Abp Ratzinger is blameless.” In my Boy Scout days we used to sing this little ditty around the campfires: “If you don’t bear the cross, then you can’t wear the crown.” To be clueless is not blameless; it is simply clueless – not a credible excuse in any court of opinion.
(I’m channeling Nancy today with My Capital Letters.)
To second @John Borst:
I think one major point that has been lost in the forest of details is that this tragic occurrence represents a colossal failure of leadership on the part of our current pope. I could not disagree more that then-Archbishop Ratzinger is “blameless.” True leaders takes responsibility for what occurs on their watch. They accept responsibility for creating and overseeing a culture where these sorts of things simply do not (and must not) happen. It doesn’t matter whether a subordinate was the one who rubber-stamped it… or what memo Ratzinger may or may not have seen… or what happened at a staff meeting. As the archbishop, the buck must stop with YOU.
Also, has anyone else wondered why there is no follow-up system in place for priests who have undergone therapy? Even ex-prisoners have a parole officer who checks in on them. Just one suggestion …
I’ll say this for John Allen’s column: It’s full of perspective and not of frenzy!
Interesting story about the lawyer who finally got these records released. It only took him 22 years.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/03/26/16950/jeff_anderson_crusading_lawyer_on_clergy_sex_abuse_finding_new_ways_to_get_around_legal_roadblocks
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels:
Did you notice that Sandro Magister in his blog in Espresso has you in his sights? He is speaking of Archbishop Weakland’s memoirs and then adds, as they say, by way of no harm:
“The respectful [or reverent --'riverente'] preface carries the signature of Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, noted representative of the ‘liberal’ wing of American Catholicism.” What’s that all about? As the Italians say, “Boh!”
Note to self: never try irony on a blog again.
“I don’t think the burden should be placed on readers here to figure out which messages come from one Anonymous, which from another Anonymous, which from a third, and so on.”
I hope it’s not dishonorable to point this out, but you do all know that hovering your mouse over the blue word “Anonymous” in the line “Posted by Anonymous” reveals the email address of the sender, right? (At least in my browser.) I mention this as much to warn people who are posting as “Anonymous” that their identity is not really protected as to help the others disambiguate the anonymoi.
John Page: “Reverent?” Hadn’t seen it that way myself. How’s his English? Or as we say in American, “does he know what he’s talking about?”
P.S. have just found it, but my Italian is rotten. Translation anyone?
“Ma non è finita. Nel 2009 Weakland ha pubblicato un libro di memorie, dal titolo: “A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church. Memoirs of an Archbishop“. Sono più di 400 pagine di autoapologia. Nelle quali l’avversario e il colpevole ultimo, anche degli sbandamenti dell’autore, è additato in Ratzinger.
“Sulla copertina del libro, Weakland aggiunge al proprio nome la sigla OSB. Egli è stato infatti anche abate presidente della confederazione dei monaci benedettini di tutto il mondo.
“La riverente prefazione porta la firma di Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, esponente di spicco dell’ala “liberal” del cattolicesimo americano.”
Ora Weakland è ricomparso sul “New York Times”. Di nuovo contro il suo arcinemico.
Magister describes the book as an “autoapologia”; does that mean what it sounds like?
*
Well….thank you know who for that
From Dionne:
“Its core difficulty is that rather than drawing on its Christian resources, the church has acted almost entirely on the basis of this world’s imperatives and standards.”
Precisely. When will the church (or rather, not the Church, but those who assume its leadership) stop the thoroughly hypocritical blaming of something called “secularism” when drawing on the the full resources of the secular world and the secular mindset to protect itself?
Aren’t we about to canonize Pius IX, would-be protector of the Papal States and all their political power? But of course, there is Scriptural authority for Rome’s secular and political authority. isn’t there?
Claire: on irony in blogs — I discovered long ago that irony does not travel well in internet communications. So don’t just swear off ironical blogs; carry the prohibition over to email as well.
Of course I just violated your rule in my own comment on the papal states, and this no doubt will now gain a reputation as a supporter of Rome’s claims for secular political authority.
Re: All of this blah blah about he didn’t get the memo and the meeting which was “busy” didn’t emphasize the serious problem that was Fr, Hullerman. I want to make one point. No one at that meeting, including Cardinal Ratzinger, cared enough to pursue the outcome of the Hullerman problem. When the uproar in Boston occured after the documents of the archdiocese were released, I was struck by the cavalier attitude of the the bishops involved. They were intensely concerned about the reputation of the church (the institution) and no mention was made of the children and youth who were affected. This attitude continues to this day. It’s not about THEM. It’s about the children and their families. I truly believe that the culture of celibate men governing the Church doesn’t lend itself to understanding the passionate concern that parents have for the welfare of their children. Many rank and file priests do understand this and I empathize with their position and the impossible place that the hierarchy has put them in.
“– celibate men governing the Church –”
In this day and age, to believe in their genral celibacy (and chastity) is one HECK of a leap of faith — not one that I care to make.
“I’d keep your eye on Medjugorje over the next few years; something tells me that it’s going to prove decisive for the survival of the faith in Europe and the rest of the world.”
If that is the case, the church is doomed! Survival based on mariolotry is survival of superstition.
Arguments for Ratzinger’s exculpability grow ever more disingenuous by the minute with every drip, drip, drip of new evidence. This doesn’t look good at all.
Two things come to mind:
1) the preservation of a sick identity structure (Scott Peck’s People of the Lie)
2) the Nixonian Watergate Trichotomy (malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance)
Even if as Archbishop he did not know, he should have made it his business.
Nonfeasance is also sufficient grounds for resignation in matters this grave.
And, let’s not forget, according to the CDF there is no parvity of matter re: sex.
I should wait 24h before hitting send but … DANG! I’m MAD! and very sad … but not disillusioned having not been illusioned w/the hierarchy for quite some time.
Father Zuhlsdorf, a staunch supporter of Pope Benedict, is hurting:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/the-poisons-that-lurk-in-the-mud/
Okay, I am the second “Anonymous.” I couldn’t figure out how to attach my name to the account, so I re-registered. Jaglowicz refers to me as “Defender of the Status Quo.” Not true. I’m perfectly happy to see the Pope taken out of St. Peter’s in an orange jumpsuit if it comes to that. I merely noted the barely restrained glee of some commenters here, including Jaglowicz, as well as the fact that for these few this has more to do with “cultural artifacts, beliefs, and underlying assumptions” than with achieving justice for victims of sexual abuse. Their priority appears to be settling old scores with Rome and the hated Ratzinger.
That post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf is really something. He started out the week blustering and blaming the Times. His commenters are convinced the revelations are either a nefarious plot by Obama and his “Marxist handlers,” or the work of the Devil. The post Claire linked to is perhaps unlike any other he’s ever posted.
Jimmy Mac,
“In this day and age, to believe in their genral celibacy (and chastity) is one HECK of a leap of faith — not one that I care to make.”
As a priest who is celibate (and know many who are also), I find this comment highly offensive and which has no place on a blog of people who claim to be Christian. I ask for an apology.
Anthony Andreassi, C.O.
There is so much being written about this, but every once in a while I read something that is truly insightful, and I recommend that others read it too:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/the-context-of-priestly-child-abuse.html#more
It’s not Sullivan, but one of his commenters.
FYI: Ruth Gledhill, Religion reporter for the Times of London, reports this morning on a podcast of the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” (a brief daily early morning reflection) by the editor of the Tablet, one Catherine Pepinster:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/ordinary-catholics-ashamed-and-brokenhearted.html
A perfect Thought for the Day about silence.
To go with it: the image of the deaf man in the NYT this morning demonstrating how he was told to keep his abuse a secret.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin_CA0.html
“They told other priests. They told three archbishops of Milwaukee. They told two police departments and the district attorney. They used sign language, written affidavits and graphic gestures to show what exactly Father Murphy had done to them. But their reports fell on the deaf ears of hearing people.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html?hp
Interesting, on the second page, the account of the meeting.
F.Y.I.-
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=629
“The bishops were proceeding under an old standard, which was replaced by the Great Society. It’s the merits of these two *frameworks* that we should be debating.”
Barbara –
What the commenter says might well be true, that the bishops were threatened by the transfer of power to deal with the problems of children, However, it seems to me that he/she overlooks the fact that the bishops were NOT “proceeding under an old standard: they were not proceeding at all. Their actions largely consisted in imposing their code of silence, their code of cover-up.
Further, it has become apparent that our bishops’ cover-ups are typical of bishops in other countries, countries which didn’t have Great Society legislation emerging, legislation to threaten their function.
I argued on another thread that the bishops were perhaps acting according to custom, if not law. Custom, I think, often impels us to do what is good, and we are wise at times to accept its authority. And I grant that when law and custom conflict that decision-makers can be in a hell of a moral position, so I don’t think all these bishops are fundamentally bad men. They were between a rock and a hard place.
However, it is equally obvious that there are times when the law must prevail, especially when the law is more consonant with Christ’s teachings. But, even after it was finally realized just how horrendous the effects of sexual abuse on a child could be, many bishops (certainly not all) did not change their behavior. They seem incapable of ever changing their minds, and their behavior or non-behavior follows from that.
If the commenter is right, then the issue is an inability or unwillingness to accept a different viewpoint in spite of over-whelming evidence and a refusal to act differently in the face of emerging truth. One might say that it’s the rigidity, stupid. But that is not surprising in the Catholic Church.
.
another ‘tell’
Looking at Catholic Culture website[I'm not a frequent looker] I find the NYT story about BXVI, the next to last of 14 articles.. only two commentors wow ..one media basher; the other saying whats up. just two..did ‘they’ all go to ground or is there a meeting where I missed the memo.
http://www.catholicculture
What did Ratzinger know?
Magicians use misdirection to cover up their illusions. I suggest that the Catholic hierarchy has for years been using the pro-life argument as misdirection. The leaders of the Catholic Church, all the way up to and including the recent popes, are patently not pro-life.
If Church leaders were really pro-life they would be anti the molestation, rape and sodomising of children by their fellow clerics. Clearly they have not been.
If Church leaders were really pro-life they would be anti the clerics who have destroyed the lives of thousands of innocent children. Clearly they have not been.
I am surprised by nothing that is being revealed. I am only surprised by the surprise. Of course Ratzinger knew, it was his job to know.
[A digression: Thanks, Barbara,for correcting my mistaken interpretation of your explanation of executive orders. It does make a difference. (I'd have thanked you on that thread, but I couldn't find it.){.
My comment about celibacy and chastity was imprudent, and I apologize for that.
Mr. Gordon, I’m all for “achieving justice for victims of sexual abuse.”
However, perhaps you are ignoring the larger picture. Ultimately, the issue is not one of clerical sexul abuse and episcopal coverups of same. No, the basic issue is one of institutional culture, specifically, a church culture that has promoted and sustained the very kinds of behaviors we’ve seen revealed in recent years.
As I mentioned earlier, we now have a pontiff doing his level best to prop up this dysfunctional culture with all kinds of cultural artifacts, beliefs, and assumptions that, if unchecked (and undone), are guaranteed to confront future generations with the very institutional behaviors that were finally brought to the light of day in recent years.
For good generic information on organizational culture, I recommend (as I’ve done several times on dotCom’s blogsite) Edgar Schein’s THE CORPORATE CULTURE SURVIVAL GUIDE. If you haven’t already, you may also want to peruse a graduate/undergraduate text on organizational behavior or culture.
“Ultimately, the issue is not one of clerical sexul [sic] abuse and episcopal coverups of same”
Really? Tell that to the victims of sexual abuse, Mr. Jaglowicz. Both liberal and conservative Catholics are free to have their opinions on why this scandal took place. But such dismissal of victims is what ultimately stains the analyses of both camps as posturing to an agenda rather than exhibiting primary concern for victims.
The frenzied ones may not like this perspective, and it is not that of the New York Times (as reporting from New York), but it strikes a reader that this reflects Cardinal Ratzinger’s attitudes when archbishop of Munich. Whatever anyone might want to say about that time, this report from Germany seems to capture what journalists have found in interviewing other Germans, including a German journalist.
“Andreas Englisch, a leading German Vatican expert and the author of several books on Benedict, said that Cardinal Ratzinger “was never interested in bureaucratic stuff,” and noted that when he was first asked to be archbishop of Munich, he considered turning down the post because he did not want to work as “a manager.” In his autobiography, Benedict described taking the post as “an infinitely difficult decision.”
“His management decisions are now the central focus of the widening scandal in the church in Germany. His supporters say that although he approved Father Hullermann’s move to his archdiocese, they assume that he may not have paid attention to a memo informing him that the priest, who had sexually abused boys in his previous posting, was almost immediately allowed to resume parish duties.
“He certainly would not have realized anything; he was in a different sphere,” said Hannes Burger, 72, who covered the church, including during Benedict’s time as archbishop, for the Munich-based daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/world/europe/28church.html?hp
Dare we say: He was a pointy-headed intellectual who had no idea of the how the real world looked.
That’s John Allen’s theory: Pope Benedict was an ignoramus on sexual abuse matters, converted in the early 21st century to a vigorous zealot against sexual abuse.
It’s a very effective defense since no event potentially unearthed by journalists or lawyers can chip it, unless it’s recent (post-2001).
But is it believable? I keep re-reading the section of his letter that is addressed to his brother bishops, imagining that he might now include himself in the group being admonished and that he could replace each “you” by “we”. Even then, it’s hard to read signs of hope into it.
Ann, the way I would make the point is thus: There was a social sea change that engulfed both the way we interact with religious institutions and the way we interact with children. I have no problem admitting, for instance, that some of the “disciplinary” tactics my mother used would be considered abuse today. I wouldn’t even dream of treating my children the way she treated me and my siblings in some respects, and I would even be afraid of being visited by CPS if I did. But I could certainly look around at the time and see how she was in some ways the same as in other ways different from my friends’ parents. The point here is to separate what was more or less “expected” as conventional understanding from what went beyond reasonable even by the standards of the time. This is useful for discerning true moral failure from mere conformity (however damaging and unjustified it turned out to be), and not simply engrafting onto prior generations our own understanding and principles.
But fast forward to now, and here is what I think the real failing of the Church has been: whether each individual decision was or was not reasonable or justified under some misguided and ultimately superseded sense of institutional preservation or prerogative almost doesn’t matter any more. The point is, these actions truly harmed individuals in ways that probably weren’t well understood at the time, which is one reason why there was so much apparent tolerance for repeat abusers, and atonement and compensation are in order (and have been for some time).
Honestly, I think it’s too late. Perhaps 10 years ago would have been the time.
Margaret
“Dare we say: He was a pointy-headed intellectual who had no idea of the how the real world looked.”
More to the point, I think, is that he took a job–why he did is anyone’s guess–for which he knew he was unsuited and then was careless in executing the job’s requirements.
Margaret
I see no one else has offered one this is my rendering of ““La riverente prefazione porta la firma di Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, esponente di spicco dell’ala “liberal” del cattolicesimo americano.”
The very respectful preface carries the signature of Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, a prominent spokesperson for the liberal wing of American Catholicism.
Benedict may not have known anything when he was in Munich, but I find it difficult to accept that he did not hear, about a year after he left there, that a priest from Munich was convicted to 18 months in prison.
I think that is probably the best response to the Hullerman case: Benedict was so scandalized that he became more involved in fighting clerical sex abuse. But that will only work if it is true, and only Benedict can tell us that.
Of course, there are a lot of things that I find difficult to accept in this case. “Clerical culture” is often blamed for the cover ups, but if the ties between bishop and priest are as tenuous as has been claimed in this case, that is not very convincing. Individual bishops need to take more responsibility, rather than indict a clueless hierarchy more generally.
Joseph Gannon: thanks for the translation, “very respectful” sounds nefarious. I thought that that preface was a straightforward account of how i came to write it and what I thought about Weakland’s efforts to explain himself in the book. Well, those Italians–often exaggerating!
JG: “More to the point, I think, is that he took a job–why he did is anyone’s guess–for which he knew he was unsuited and then was careless in executing the job’s requirements.” This reminds me of our previous president and so many others, eg, Wall Street bankers, etc.
“The point here is to separate what was more or less “expected” as conventional understanding from what went beyond reasonable even by the standards of the time.”
Well put, Barbara. I think that especially applies in these latter-day cases such as the MUrphy case. Murphy was beyond the pale — any pale — and should not have received leniency.
“The point is, these actions truly harmed individuals in ways that probably weren’t well understood at the time, which is one reason why there was so much apparent tolerance for repeat abusers, and atonement and compensation are in order (and have been for some time).”
Barbara –
Oops — just read your last paragraph carefully.
I think that, yes, in old cases like Munich’s Hullermann one there was reason for tolerance of the bishops mistakes. But in later cases such as the horrendous Murphy case, tolerance is not it order.
Anushree Shirali, I am not being dismissive of the victims.
While I am a social liberal and Catholic progressive, I am looking at the issue of clerical sexual abuse as a manifestation of an underlying larger reality, to wit, an ecclesial culture that effectively elevated the ordained and subordinated the laity.
I’m a retired organizational HR person, and so I am looking at the institutional Catholic Church (or, more specifically, the Church of Rome) through the lens of applied behavioral science.
Unless individual Catholics begin to reframe their perspectives of church (and this will most assuredly involve examining doctrinal “taken for granteds” such as ontology, etc.), I can just about guarantee that future generations will see a resurgence of sexual abuse and other wrongdoing by persons perceived to be in positions of trust and power. (Remember that the U.S. church has only looked at incidents of reported sexual abuse retroactive to 1950. God only knows what happened before then in a rigid monarchical institution like the Catholic Church.)
Clerical sexual abuse is a problem, but it is a symptom of a much larger situation. We need a thorough cultural audit of the Church of Rome to see where we need to go from there.