Peter Kramer
(1968- )
Diocese:
Regensburg, Germany
Current Status: suspended
Location: Prison
Peter Kramer, ordained in 1997, abused two boys in 1999. In 2000 he was convicted in a non-public
trial, sentenced to probation, and ordered to go to therapy and keep away from children. But
he soon started working in a parish; his work with children was the subject of newspaper articles
the diocese saved.
His bishop, relying upon a good report from the therapist, officially appointed
Kramer a pastor in 2004, two years after German bishops solemnly promised never again to appoint
a convicted abuser to work with children. The bishop told no one about the conviction; Kramer
cultivated the boys of the parish. Kramer’s past was revealed in summer 2007. In the fall of
2007 he was accused of abuse in his new parish; in March 2008 he pleaded guilty to the charges
of abuse. The bishop said that he acted properly in appointing Kramer; Pope Benedict seemed
to agree.
by Leon J. Podles
Published by the Crossland Foundation, February 19, 2008
Updated April 1, 2008
© Copyright, Crossland Foundation, 2008
Early Career
In June 1997, Peter Kramer, a former auto mechanic, and a “delayed vocation,” was ordained by Bishop Manfred Müller for the diocese of Regensburg in southern Germany. In September 1997, he was stationed at the village of Viechtach.
About year and a half later, on March 31, 1999, the Wednesday of Holy Week, thirty-one-year-old
Kramer abused two boys. While their parents, Joanna Treimer, a music teacher, and her
husband, were at an event at the Kolpinghaus community center, Kramer was in the choir
room, playing a game of tag with nine-year-old Daniel and his brother, twelve-year-old
Benedikt. Kramer lured the boys into a corner, caught them, and groped their genitals
(Kramer later called this “playing doctor”1“Er beschreib die Situation später einmal als eine Art Doktorspiel” (“Riekofen Prozess: Pädophiler Pfarrer muss drei Jahre in Haft,” Die Welt, March 13, 2008). All translations are mine. I have quoted the German when there is a question of tone or of legal and medical terminology.). Their eleven-year-old sister Franziska saw this and reported it to their parents. The next day, the Treimers confronted Kramer. He denied everything. Joanna and her husband then told their pastor, who believed them and contacted the chancery on April 1, 1999.
On April 6, 1999, Bishop Manfred Müller removed Kramer from his parish without any explanation. He sent the priest to a clinic for three months. The Vicar General of the diocese, Michael Fuchs, told the Treimers that no legal action should follow. “I feared that the children would have to testify in public. The boy was completely disturbed, slept badly, and had to cry a lot,”2Jörg Klotzek, “Kaplan missbraucht Buben – und wird Pfarrer,” Passauer Neue Presse, July 26, 2007. Joanna later said. The family decided not to go to the police.
In July 1999, Joanna Treimer wrote to the diocese and demanded Kramer never again
be allowed to work with children and youth: “I cannot sleep when I imagine that he
could destroy the souls of more children and damage more families,” she wrote. But
the diocese would not agree to this and insisted that it alone would make decisions
about Kramer’s future.3“Doch der Justitiar des Bistums verweigerte die Versicherung, der gleichen könne ‘vom Bischöflichen Ordinariat nicht gutgeheißen werden,’ schreib er an die Familie. Die Kirche könne nur versprechen, ‘dass die künftige Einsatz des Herrn K. erst aufgrund einer sorgfältigen Entscheidung erfolgen wird’” (Conny Neumann and Peter Wensierski, “Schweigen gegen Geld,” Der Spiegel, September 17, 2007).
In November 1999, the Treimers, Kramer, and diocesan officials came to an agreement:
Kramer paid the children 5,000 marks (then about $3,000) in damages (Schmerzengeld).
The parents asked that there be no publicity for the sake of the children and signed
an agreement not to speak of the affair.
The boys’ father, a deeply devout Catholic, was distraught about the abuse. He had
a nervous breakdown and was sent to a clinic. In early 2000, he told a fellow patient
about the abuse, and she told the police. 4Jörg Klotzek, “Kaplan missbraucht Buben – and wird Pfarrer,” Passauer Neue Presse, July 26, 2007.Kramer was arrested, tried, and found guilty.
A court-appointed forensic expert, Dr. Bernd Ottermann of the District Clinic in
Straubing, declared Kramer a homosexual pedophile. Of his report to the court, Ottermann
later said, “I had then clearly and distinctly stated that employment of Mr. K. in
the spiritual care of youth was completely out of the question."5“Ich
habe damals klar und deutlich gemacht, dass ein Einsatz in der Jugendseelsorge für
Herrn K[ramer] auf keinen Fall in Frage kommen darf” (“Widersprüche zwischen Gericht
und Bistum,” Regensburger Wochenblatt, n.d.).
On July 7, 2000, a judge sentenced Kramer to three years probation on two conditions:
that he undergo therapy and that he not work with children during the probation. The
judge explained that she imposed the latter condition because of the diagnosis of pedophilia.6This
1999 report diagnosed Kramer as having “a disturbance of sexual preference in the sense
of homoerotic pedophilia” and that “he manipulatively used his position as confessor
to keep the child silent” (“Störung der Sexualpräferez im Sinne einer homoerotischen
Pädophilie” and “Manipulativ nutzte er seine Position as Beichvater, um das Kind zum
Schwiegen zu bringen”[“Pfarrgemeinderat weist Kampagnen-Vorwurf zurück” Bayerischen
Rundfunks, October 10, 2007]). However, she informed the diocese of
this report via phone and only in general terms; she did not send Dr. Ottermann’s report
to the diocese; nor did the diocese request it,7The
diocese later claimed: “Über ganz wenige Punkte wurde der Justiciar des Ordinariates
in groben Zügen informiert; das 50-seitige Gutachten selbst wurde dem Ordinariat, da
es nicht Prozessbeteiligter was – nich ausgehändigt – und konte logischer Weise später
bei der Entscheidung der Diözese über den Wiedereinsatz von Peter K. in der Seelsorge
auch nicht berücksichtigt wurden” (Dr. Franz Frühmorgen, “Chronologie Peter K., Viechtach
/ Riekofen-Schönach,” http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/borPage002700.asp). But a judge
said that the diocese could have seen the report (see note 8), and the diocese never
asked to see the report or even a detailed summary of the important points in it. although
it could have asked to see it.8“Laut Richter Iglhaut [the judge at the March 13, 2008 trial of Kramer] hätte sich die Diöcese diese Gutachten besorgen können” (Rolf Thym and Rudolf Neumaier, “Ein Priester als Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit” Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 13, 2008). Additionally, the judge could have appointed a probation
officer (Bewähungshelfer), but she did not. As a result, no one was monitoring Kramer
except his therapist and officials of the diocese of Regensburg. A priest had to send
the court reports about Kramer every three months and, depending on their content,
the probation period could have been extended.
A diocesan consultant found a therapist, the head of psychiatry at a hospital which
was attached to a monastery near Baden-Württemberg.9Christian Eckl, “Ein Urteil, viele Schuldige,” Regensburger Wochenblatt, March 14, 2008. The therapist saw Kramer only
two hours a month.10“Urteil gegen pëdophilen Pfarrer: Tief gehemmter und verunsicherter Mensch,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 13, 2008. The diocese also assigned Kramer as chaplain of a retirement home in the town of Sünching. The mothers of a children’s group from the nearby town of Riekofen met Kramer at the retirement home and asked Kramer to help with worship services for small children. He was not officially assigned to the parish at Riekhofen, although he worked there, and in fact soon ran the parish.
The diocese claimed he worked only as a supply priest (that is, saying mass) and did
this with the permission of his therapist.11“Pfarrgemeinderat weist Kampagne-Vorwurf zuruck,” Bayerische Rundfunk, October 10, 2007. But after the death of the pastor of Riekhofen
in February 2001, Kramer took over all duties at the parish, including work with children,
as the diocese was fully aware.12“Aus der von der Polizei beschlagnahmten Personalakte des Pfarrers geht allerdings hervor, dass die Diözesanleitung zu jeder Zeit über die Arbeit des vorbestraften Priesters in Riekhofen informiert war. So wurden auch Zeitungsartikel gesammelt, die uber die Aktivitäten des Geistlichen mit Jugendlichen berichteten. Nachdem der zuvor zuständige Pfarrer gestorben ist, war der Angeklagete praktisch bereits während seiner Bewährungszeit als Pfarrer verantvortlich, “Bistum Regensburg: Erklärungen waren lückenhaft,” Die Welt, March 13, 2008. On May 10, 2001, the Mittelbayerische
Zeitung published
a photograph of Kramer with sixteen children receiving their first communion. This
ministry was a direct violation of the court order.
From February 2001 to August 2004, records show the administrator of the parish was
the pastor in neighboring Schönach, Helmut Grüneisl. Though the diocese must have known
that Kramer was the only priest working in the parish, it did not inform Grüneisl of
Kramer’s past. As Grüneisl approached retirement, he asked the diocese several times
whether Kramer could be his successor. He was informed that Kramer had a history of
heart and lung problems, and his health was questionable. Though Grüneisl thought Kramer’s
intense interest in the youth of the parish was “strange” (komisch), he had no reason
to suspect anything was wrong.
The priest who was dean of the area, Hans Bock, heard
nothing of Kramer’s problems until 2003, when Kramer’s probation was nearly over. Diocesan
officials told him only that “something had happened in Viechtach” and mentioned, vaguely,
that Bock should “keep an eye on things.” Bock was not told of the conviction or any
of the conditions under which Kramer worked.13Grüneisl was told “in Viechtach hat es was gegeben” and “er möge ein bisschen aufpassen” (“Fall Riekhofen: Bistum ließ Dekan über Vorstrafen von Peter K. im Unklaren,” Mittelbayerische Zeitung, October 13, 2007).
In January 2002, Bishop Manfred Müller retired from the diocese of Regensburg.
After a deluge of news about abusive priests in the United States, in September 2002 German bishops issued a series of guidelines, one of which specified that no priest convicted of sexual abuse of children could be assigned to work with children: “Clerics who have been guilty of the sexual abuse of minors, after they have served their sentence, will never again be put in an area that brings them into contact with children and young people.”14“Zum Vorgehen bei sexuellen Missbrauch Minderjähriger durch Geistliche im Bereich der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz: Leitlinien mit Erläuterungen,” September 27, 2002. Article 12: “Nach Verbüßung seiner Strafe werden dem Täter keine Aufgaben mehr übertragen, die ihn in Verbindung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen bringen. Geistliche, die sich des sexuellen Missbrauch Minderjahriger schuldig gemacht haben, werden nach Verbüßing ihrer Strafe nicht mehr in Bereichen eingesetzt, die sie mit Kindern und Jugendlichen in Verbindung bringen.” The document has no mention that a statement from an expert pronouncing the criminal “healed” creates an exception to this guideline.
A New Era
Gerhard Ludwig Müller was a professor of theology at Munich and friend of the Peruvian liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Together, they co-authored a book titled An
der Seite der Armen (On the Side of the Poor). Müller also is an editor of the collected works of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Müller opined that divorced and remarried Catholics can, under some conditions, be readmitted to communion without a formal annulment. Müller is therefore not a reactionary, but he has defended the limitation of ordination to men as theologically-based. His work attracted the Vatican’s eye, and in October 2002, Pope John Paul II appointed him bishop of Regensburg.
Müller soon came into conflict with elements in his diocese, particularly the movement
Wir sind die Kirche (We are the Church). Disagreements were mostly over who should
exercise authority in the Church and how. The substantive issue was the ordination
of women. Müller dissolved the diocesan council, fired a key theologian, withdrew permission
to teach Catholic theology from August Jilek, and suspended pastors who disagreed with
him.15Christopher Wenzel, “Sexueller Missbrauch: Regensburger Bischof in Kreuzfeuer,” Die Welt, September 15, 2007. Additionally, Müller fined retired pastor Siegfried Felber 600 euros for preaching
at an ecumenical wedding.16Christian Eckl, “Widersprüche zwischen Gericht and Bistum,” Wochenblatt, n.d.
Footnotes
_____________________
1 “Er beschreib die Situation später einmal als eine Art Doktorspiel” (“Riekofen Prozess: Pädophiler Pfarrer muss drei Jahre in Haft,” Die Welt, March 13, 2008). All translations are mine. I have quoted the German when there is a question of tone or of legal and medical terminology.
2 Jörg Klotzek, “Kaplan missbraucht Buben – und wird Pfarrer,” Passauer Neue Presse, July 26, 2007.
3 “Doch der Justitiar des Bistums verweigerte die Versicherung, der gleichen könne ‘vom Bischöflichen Ordinariat nicht gutgeheißen werden,’ schreib er an die Familie. Die Kirche könne nur versprechen, ‘dass die künftige Einsatz des Herrn K. erst aufgrund einer sorgfältigen Entscheidung erfolgen wird’” (Conny Neumann and Peter Wensierski, “Schweigen gegen Geld,” Der
Spiegel, September 17, 2007).
4 Jörg Klotzek, “Kaplan missbraucht Buben – and wird Pfarrer,” Passauer Neue Presse, July 26, 2007.
5 “Ich habe damals klar und deutlich gemacht, dass ein Einsatz in der Jugendseelsorge für Herrn K[ramer] auf keinen Fall in Frage kommen darf” (“Widersprüche zwischen Gericht und Bistum,” Regensburger Wochenblatt, n.d.).
6 This 1999 report diagnosed Kramer as having “a disturbance of sexual preference in the sense of homoerotic pedophilia” and that “he manipulatively used his position as confessor to keep the child silent” (“Störung der Sexualpräferez im Sinne einer homoerotischen Pädophilie” and “Manipulativ nutzte er seine Position as Beichvater, um das Kind zum Schwiegen zu bringen”[“Pfarrgemeinderat weist Kampagnen-Vorwurf zurück” Bayerischen Rundfunks, October 10, 2007])
7 The diocese later claimed: “Über ganz wenige Punkte wurde der Justiciar des Ordinariates in groben Zügen informiert; das 50-seitige Gutachten selbst wurde dem Ordinariat, da es nicht Prozessbeteiligter was – nich ausgehändigt – und konte logischer Weise später bei der Entscheidung der Diözese über den Wiedereinsatz von Peter K. in der Seelsorge auch nicht berücksichtigt wurden” (Dr. Franz Frühmorgen, “Chronologie Peter K., Viechtach / Riekofen-Schönach,” http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/borPage002700.asp). But a judge said that the diocese could have seen the report (see note 8), and the diocese never asked to see the report or even a detailed summary of the important points in it
8 “Laut Richter Iglhaut [the judge at the March 13, 2008 trial of Kramer] hätte sich die Diöcese diese Gutachten besorgen können” (Rolf Thym and Rudolf Neumaier, “Ein Priester als Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit” Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 13, 2008).
9 Christian Eckl, “Ein Urteil, viele Schuldige,” Regensburger Wochenblatt, March 14, 2008.
10 “Urteil gegen pëdophilen Pfarrer: Tief gehemmter und verunsicherter Mensch,” Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, March 13, 2008.
11 “Pfarrgemeinderat weist Kampagne-Vorwurf zuruck,” Bayerische Rundfunk, October 10, 2007.
12 “Aus der von der Polizei beschlagnahmten Personalakte des Pfarrers geht allerdings hervor, dass die Diözesanleitung zu jeder Zeit über die Arbeit des vorbestraften Priesters in Riekhofen informiert war. So wurden auch Zeitungsartikel gesammelt, die uber die Aktivitäten des Geistlichen mit Jugendlichen berichteten. Nachdem der zuvor zuständige Pfarrer gestorben ist, war der Angeklagete praktisch bereits während seiner Bewährungszeit als Pfarrer verantvortlich, “Bistum Regensburg: Erklärungen waren lückenhaft,” Die Welt, March 13, 2008.
13 Grüneisl was told “in Viechtach hat es was gegeben” and “er möge ein bisschen aufpassen” (“Fall Riekhofen: Bistum ließ Dekan über Vorstrafen von Peter K. im Unklaren,” Mittelbayerische Zeitung, October 13, 2007).
14 “Zum Vorgehen bei sexuellen Missbrauch Minderjähriger durch Geistliche im Bereich der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz: Leitlinien mit Erläuterungen,” September 27, 2002. Article 12: “Nach Verbüßung seiner Strafe werden dem Täter keine Aufgaben mehr übertragen, die ihn in Verbindung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen bringen. Geistliche, die sich des sexuellen Missbrauch Minderjahriger schuldig gemacht haben, werden nach Verbüßing ihrer Strafe nicht mehr in Bereichen eingesetzt, die sie mit Kindern und Jugendlichen in Verbindung bringen.” The document has no mention that a statement from an expert pronouncing the criminal “healed” creates an exception to this guideline.
15 Christopher Wenzel, “Sexueller Missbrauch: Regensburger Bischof in Kreuzfeuer,” Die Welt, September 15, 2007.
16 Christian Eckl, “Widersprüche zwischen Gericht and Bistum,” Wochenblatt, n.d.
Learn more about the Crossland Foundation and what it is doing at www.crosslandfoundation.org
