Print Blog
Email a Friendthe words quoted from our holy father made me cry. Such a holy, loving man, truly the Holy Spirit could not have chosen better for our Papa.
Unjustly Accused
no, the pope didn't
Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:00 PM
The Church in Germany, like the American church before it, is facing up to the misdeeds of certain clergy and failure to confront those sins adequately at the time.
(That’s about as nicely as I can treat such an ugly topic in this forum.)
The good news is, Pope Benedict is and has been on the forefront of forthright confrontation of these matters.
The bad news is, many in the press, particularly in Europe, are unjustly trying to connect the Holy Father to a case of abuse.
Over at our sister site, Jimmy Akin has a good post explaining the rank injustice of some of the headlines you may be seeing.
This is a difficult topic to discuss because the nature of the sin involved is so base that we (or I, anyway) mostly can’t think of anything but the horror suffered by genuine victims of abuse and the immense damage done to the Church and the priesthood by these kinds of crimes. I personally have three college friends who have left the Church because they have simply and genuinely been scandalized. And I understand them.
It is an injustice, however, to try to lay the burden of guilt at the foot of the Holy Father. Of all the figures in the Church since we all first became aware of the pedophilia scandals, he appears to me to be the most vocal and forthright in response.
Jimmy Akin links to a fascinating interview with Msgr. Scicluna, who is essentially the Church’s chief prosecutor in cases of what is known as “grave delict.” He says of the accusation that the Pope has somehow been negligent:
That accusation is false and calumnious. On this subject I would like to highlight a number of facts. Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the “delicta graviora” were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 “Motu Proprio” did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, “sine acceptione personarum” [without respect to persons]. Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.
It was I’m sure then- Cardinal Ratzinger’s experiences with such cases that led him to pen his famous and beautiful 9th station meditation from the 2005 Stations of the Cross:
What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).
This meditation was followed by a prayer:
Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.
I have no intention of bashing our bishops, many of whom in our own American crisis were innocent men forced to carry the burden of cleaning up after their predecessors. But I longed at the height of the scandals in our own Church to have someone in leadership speak not only in the technical language of “regret” and “steps will be taken,” but also in the moral language of horror and shame. No doubt many did in their own dioceses, and in their meetings with victims, but I felt the absence of a “red-blooded” public response keenly. I therefore could have kissed Pope Benedict when he came to the States and even before he’d landed he said this before going on to a more technical answer:
It is a great suffering for the Church in the United States and for the Church in general, for me personally, that this could happen. If I read the history of these events, it is difficult for me to understand how it was possible for priests to fail in this way in the mission to give healing, to give God’s love to these children. I am ashamed and we will do everything possible to ensure that this does not happen in future.
Then, if you’ll recall, while he was here he quietly met with victims of abuse without announcing the meeting beforehand so as not to use these people further—a gesture he has repeated on pastoral visits elsewhere.
I think the Pope has been a fearless prosecutor, a just administrator and a sensitive pastor in these ugly cases, and I can’t bear to see him calumniated.
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
Posted by Beth on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 8:47 AM (EDT):
I admit I know nothing of the details. However, I do NOT have a great deal of confidence with the way the church handles things and is really never upfront with us.
Was the Pope not a Bishop in the diocese? Did he not work over these priests? Did he not know they were pedophiles? I wondering what facts the media messing up.
We know Pope John Paul II was duped by Father Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Something is wrong with the culture in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church—when a very sick individual is allowed to work is way into being buddy, buddy with Pope and at the same time is a lying pedohile. (Many similiar articles were written in defense of Father Maciel before the truth came out—-I do not put him in the same catagory of the Pope just using it as a point of reference)
While this article is not about the unfortunate revelations about the truth of Father Maciel it does bring up to the same subject. The crisis of sexual abuse in the church and how the Bishops, Popes and Cardinals deal with it. Which has undoubtly been not dealt with well. I’m not sure who to trust—the media or the church.
Posted by Beth on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 9:03 AM (EDT):
I wanted to ask a question.
Is the Pope innocent because he had no idea what was going on? Or did he just get fooled like Pope John Paul II did with Father Maciel? If he did get fooled, is he somehow not responsible for it?
I would like more information. I do sift carefully through what the media says but sometimes they are right.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 11:07 AM (EDT):
Beth, follow the links in Akins’ post and you will see that the Church & the secular papers agree on the actual facts of the case. The headlines here unjustly accuse the pope of malfeasance the actual stories acquit him of, as I think Akin demonstrates nicely.
Thanks Rebecca I read the link.
Atkin goes on to speculate, if the Pope did know (the priest living in his rectory) was a pedophile we all thought therpay back then would cure it. If someone lived in my home and I knew he was going back to work with children I woul have a moral obligation to act. It is common sense. Consult the families of the victims. Consult any woman with a mother’s heart and it would have be clear.
The Pope lives with this priest? Did they never talk to each other? He knew nothing?
We have no evidence that the Pope knew and Atkins says (and I paraphrase) if he did know it wasn’t his priest anyway. Did the bishops never consult with each other on serious matters?
So perhaps not involved in a cover up but I believe the Pope does have some responsiblity here. Just has our beloved John Paul II bears some responsibility for the grave issues with Father Maciel at the very least by encouraging a group whose foundation and rules allowed a pedophile to flourish right under his nose.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 2:14 PM (EDT):
Beth, Card. Ratzinger never lived in the same rectory w/ the guy! He simply gave permission for him to have a place to sleep while he was in treatment without authorizing him to have any ministry.
Fr. Z. has even more on this, however.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/how-to-write-a-news-piece-on-the-german-abuse-scandal-and-the-popes-involvement/
Posted by Beth on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 2:51 PM (EDT):
Rebecca,
Do you think that if the Pope had to do it again he would do something differently? Certainly we agree on that? I think I understand enough to believe that.
The Pope was asked to welcome someone into a rectory in his diocese whom he knew had some sexual deviancy. He does not bother to ask what it is even though he is well aware of the possibilities. Did he inform the priest at this rectory of the issue? This is a parish with families and children. the rectory probably had a housekeeper who was a woman. They believed therapy cured it—but he had not been through therapy. Were any children abused at this parish where this priest resided under the Pope’s watch?
Were there any safeguards put up?
I think that at the founation of the Church over many years are serious issues with the way things were handling and communicated. I think the heirarchy acte like the “good old boys club” protecting their own as their first priority. Pope John Paul II was part of this dysfunction and it appears this Pope as well. I guess we can agree we have different perspectives.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 3:56 PM (EDT):
Beth, you make assumptions about the rectory where this man was placed and about what Card. Ratzinger didn’t say that there is no cause to make. No one thusfar has accused him of placing this man in contact with children or of hiding the truth about him from anyone who needed to know.
The false accusation—made by headlines alone, not by the facts as known—is that Ratzinger knowingly returned a pedophile to ministry. Since he never authorized him for any ministry, nor was even consulted about such a decision, and since the later accusations against the man took place long after Ratzinger’s tenure as bishop, that accusation is false, simply.
However, I certainly agree with you—I think no one can disagree—that the standard operating procedure for dealing with pedophiles in the 70s through the mid-80s was wrong-headed on several levels—including being based on “science” (psychology) now considered repudiated.
I insist nevertheless that, as Msgr. Scicluna says in that interview above, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has been fearless in defending the Church, even in high profile cases. Shortly after his inauguration, he took pastoral control of Assisi from the Franciscans to correct theological abuses; he is the man who had Maciel investigated and prosecuted: and not only Maciel, but also Padre Gino, another infamous case. I don’t claim the man has never made an error in judgment, but he has been utterly unafraid to follow facts where they lead and his integrity is to my mind unimpeachable, and he has been a tireless and fearless champion of the Church’s integrity wherever he has served.
ok so they are assumptions—but clearly questions that should be addressed and answered by the Pope himself. ie Did he know he was a pedophile? Did he inform the parish priest? Were safeguards in place for the children? What was his experience with any pedophile priests back then? Was he never in contact with any of them? Answer the questions so that people are not led to make assumptions about the answers.
I have never heard of the Pope prosecuting Maciel—sure he was asked to live a life of penance but no one admitted the truth of his evil ways. When was he prosecuted?
I admire the Cardinal of Ireland for acknowledging his involvement in meeting in which 2 sexually abused boys were asked to sign oaths of secrecy. He is truly sorry. There was way more gong on with the heirarchy than a misunderstanding of pedophilia. There is a sickness of power, control and abuse that still needs to be cleaned up.
Posted by Rebecca Teti on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 5:03 PM (EDT):
You are right; Maciel was never brought to trial. The communique announcing his removal from ministry said that was due to his advanced age. However, it was Ratzinger who believed his accusers and had him investigated while prefect of CDF and then as pope summarily removed him from ministry.
I stand by my defense of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Benedict XVI and John Allen’s characterization of the matter in the column I’m about to link ticks me off a bit. However, as Allen is both knowledgeable and fair, it’s only right to call your attention to his column which somewhat bolsters your point of view, even as it ends by justifying my belief that B16 is a hero in these matters.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
