Pope Benedict

Light of the World – The Williamson Affair

in Pope Benedict 2 Comments Tags: , ,

Archbishop Lefebvre was unhappy with the Second Vatican Council and with the way the Church was going. He established the Society of Saint Pius X, which had some success (600,000 members, 500 priests) and became increasingly alienated from Rome. One cannot have sacraments without bishops, so to assure that the Society would have a line of bishops to consecrate priests, Lefebvre consecrated bishops without the permission of the pope. This entailed automatic excommunication for both Lefebvre and for the bishops he had consecrated. 

A similar situation exists in China. Chinese bishops have consecrated bishops chosen by the Communist government without first getting permission of the pope. These bishops also are excommunicated. (p. 22) 

But “when such a bishop professes his acknowledgment both of the primacy in general and also that of the currently reigning pope in particular, his excommunication is revoked, because there is no more reason for it.” (p. 22) 

The Vatican is trying to regularize the situation in China and unify the two factions of the Church – those who acknowledge the primacy of the pope and those who by their action have rejected it. 

The bishops in the Society of Saint Pius X were not excommunicate because of their views on Vatican II but because of their action in the irregular consecration. Once they acknowledged the primacy, they “had to be absolved form excommunication.” 

When the Vatican revoked the excommunications of four bishops in the Society of Pius X, it soon discovered that one of them, Williamson, was a Holocaust denier. He in fact had never been a member of the Catholic Church, but had gone straight from Anglicanism to the Society of Saint Pius X (this is another complication which Benedict did not address – how do you lift the excommunication of someone who was never a member of the Church?). 

It would have taken about three minutes on Google to discover Williamson’s bizarre views, but Benedict admitted “none of us went on the Internet to find out what sort of person we were dealing with.” (p. 121) 

Napoleon said that one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence. 

This failure let the tabloid press have a field day: “Nazi Pope Welcomes Holocaust Denier.” etc. Yes, quite unfair, as Benedict complained, but incompetence has consequences. 

However, Benedict says that if he know about Williamson’s views he would have handled the matter differently, “the first step would have been to separate the Williamson case form the others.” (p. 121) 

This calls for follow up questions. Why would Benedict have handled it differently? How would he have handled it?  He said that excommunication “had” to be lifted once the bishops acknowledged the primacy. Where in canon law does it say the bishop’s views can be taken into consideration in deciding whether to lift an excommunication? 

Williamson was not accused of heresy, but of holding an erroneous opinion about an historical event (no doubt from the worst of motives – but some people can’t believe the Holocaust happened because they can’t believe that human beings would do such terrible things). 

Are some views so irrational as to be beyond the pale? Which ones?  — Holocaust denial, Flat Worlder, Extra Terrestrial Abduction, or the belief that the the 2001 attacks in the U.S were carried out by U.S. and Israeli intelligence (a significant part of German population believes this). How about the Central American cardinal who thought the media stories on sexual abuse were a Jewish plot? 

Seewald should have asked follow-up questions, but on this issue, as on many others, he did not really ask hard questions.

Leave a Comment

Light of the World – Benedict’s World View

in Pope Benedict No Comments Tags: , ,

Pope Benedict’s interview with Seewald, Light of the World, reveals a lot about how the pope thinks. I will comment separately on the issues he raises. 

Joseph Ratzinger grew in a devout Catholic family in Nazi Germany. During his adult life he saw most of the Eurasian landmass under communist dictatorships that sought to marginalize or destroy religion and that inflicted unimaginable cruelties on innocent people. He lived through and saw “the whole power of evil that came to a head in the major dictatorships of the twentieth century – and that in another way is still at work today.” (p. 165) 

That other way is the “the danger that reason – so-called Western reason – claims that it as now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim that is inimical to freedom…no one should be forces to live according to the ‘new religion’ as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.” (p. 53) 

This new religion “pretends to be generally valid because it is reasonable, indeed, because it is reason itself, which knows all and, therefore, defines the frame of reference that is now supposed to apply to everyone.” (p. 52) 

Benedict here is referring to the Western attitude that abortion, gay marriage, and the manipulation human life through biotechnology – as in Brave New World – is self-evidently reasonable and all opposition to it must be eliminated to at least rendered ineffectual. 

But Benedict also sees the danger of a “dictatorship of relativism”: “a large proportion of contemporary philosophies, in fact, consist of saying that man is not capable if truth,” in which case, “the opinion of the majority would be the only criterion that counted.” (pp. 50-51). 

These two views of the modern world seem on the surface to be incompatible: does the Western world now think it has attained truly scientific truth, as the Nazis thought they had attained scientific racial truth and the Communists thought they had attained scientific economic truth? Or does the Western world dismiss truth claims and decide everything by power – the decision of the majority? 

Benedict is right that both attitudes are at work in the modern world. When a Christian tries to argue the truth claims of theism or of Christianity, the modern response is “What is truth?” “That is simply your opinion,” etc.  But when Christianity to act on or merely teach Christian views on homosexuality, they are disciplined and prosecuted because the modern world thinks that such things are so patently false that the person who holds them must be motivated solely by hate. 

If I were Seewald, I would have asked Benedict to explain how these contradictory tendencies can both be at work in the modern world to the detriment of Christianity.

Leave a Comment

Benedict and Spanish Laicism

in Pope Benedict, Spain 5 Comments Tags: , ,

 

I finished my Camino on October 31, met my wife, and we stayed in Santiago until November 4, just before the arrival of the Pope. We went to Madrid for a few days and observed, among other things, the controversy started by the remarks that Benedict made to reporters on his plane: 

“In Spain, a strong, aggressive laicity, an anti-clericalism, a secularization has been born as we experienced in the 1930’s,” Benedict said. 

Along the Camino I had seen the memorials to the priests and religious murdered by the Republican side in 1936-1939 – and also the memorials to the leftists murdered by the Nationalist forces. With the wayside crosses, such memorials put the aches and pains I was feeling into a proper perspective.

 

At the Prado we saw Goya’s overwhelming paintings of the violence and repression in Madrid during the battle between the Spanish people and the French forces in 1808. At the Queen Sofia museum we saw an exhibition about the Spanish Civil War – of which Picasso’s “Guernica” was the centerpiece. The Republican propaganda showed the Catholic clergy as murderous allies of the Nazi-dominated fascists. We saw the newsreels of the battle of Madrid, newsreels of the children killed by bombs and artillery.

 

On Saturday we attended mass at the Augustinian church – the  mass of the martyrs of the order, murdered in Spain 1936-1939. We were given cards with their pictures, and the relics were in the church. The priest pointed to the martyrs during his sermon, as he spoke too of the Catholics murdered during the All Saints day mass in Iraq. 

 

Those who know Spain far better than I do say that conditions have changed so much that another civil war is impossible – I hope they are right. But the memories of the war are bitter on both the Catholic and laicist sides.

 

Franco was ruthless in his conduct of the war as a matter of policy and was not magnanimous in victory. The Republican side let mobs massacre soldiers and clergy and suppressed all Catholic activity. It was hardly surprising that Catholics turned to Franco to save them from being slaughtered, but they turned a blind eye to Franco’s slaughter of  Republicans who had done nothing criminal.

 

Are the Pope’s comments justified? I do not know enough about Spanish life to know whether the consumerist secularism of today’s Spain is as dangerous as the murderous “Laicismo” of the 1930s. Catholics and laicists have learned to live together in Spain, but they still do not like or respect each other.

 

Leave a Comment

Oremus pro pontifice nostro

in Pope Benedict 9 Comments Tags:

I have been harsh in some remarks, but I really like Benedict. I pray for him every day, and did so when he was a cardinal. In an interview years ago he said he liked to vacation in a cooler spot than Italy, but the salary of a cardinal was not enormous. I sent him a substantial gift and asked him to use it for himself – he wrote back that he couldn’t do that but that he would use it for the CDF library. I got a Christmas card from him that year, which I put out every year until I lost it. 

Both John Allen and Jason Berry (Vows of Silence – about the Legion of Christ – I funded the documentary) think that Ratzinger had a real change of heart after he started reading dossiers on abuse – and I suspect that he saw sanitized versions. When he became pope, he acted against the some of the most prominent abusers, abusers who had protectors in John Paul and probably Sodano. 

Ratzinger made a dreadful mistake in Munich and should own up to it. He should never have turned such a sensitive case over to a subordinate and not followed up on it. He should also have found some way to discipline the worst offenders, or at least the most prominent offenders, among the bishops who enabled abuse. 

He is paying for these failures now – his mistakes will be all his pontificate is remembered for. I wish he would own up to his mistakes and confess to the Church that he has not been a perfect bishop and pope – but he has tried.  And how well could any of us handled such responsibilities? An open and sincere confession would clear the air, and only his incorrigible enemies would continue attacking him. But defensiveness will provoke only more attacks and make people wonder how badly he has failed.

Leave a Comment

A Papal Disappointment

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Ireland, repentance, Responsibility, Vatican 7 Comments Tags: , ,

Benedict’s letter on sexual abuse, addressed to the Church in Ireland, has disappointed almost everyone.

Confession that is a requirement of repentance involves confessing the whole truth and a desire to make reparation.

Benedict makes some dubious assertions, half-truths at best. He claims that a misunderstanding of Vatican II led to a neglect of the penal aspects of the code of canon law. This may have happened, but what explains the toleration of abuse before Vatican II? From the American cases I have read the usual response of a bishop before Vatican II was to pawn an abusive priest off on an unsuspecting bishop, who was then stuck with him

The sexual liberation of the 1960s seems to have led to an increase of abuse cases; but this may be an illusion of reporting. Victims in older cases may have died and the files of abusive priests were generally destroyed on the death of the abuser. And terrible abuse occurred before the 1960s, and later abuser were trained in pre-1960s seminaries.

Benedict acknowledges the failures of the bishops – but proposes no consequences for them. Cardinal Law remains a cardinal and serves on important dicasteries – all of these at the pleasure of the pope.

And Benedict totally ignores any Vatican responsibility in the toleration of abuse.

At the very least, it was clear that the bureaucratic requirements of sending as case to the Vatican were daunting to many bishops. The Vatican returned cases so that every i would be dotted and every t crossed. Bishops got the clear impression that the Vatican did not want to see these cases. Was the impression mistaken?

Cases were also surrounded by pontifical secrecy. That is, anyone who revealed any aspect of the trial would be excommunicated. The Vatican now claims this was not intended to prevent church authorities from reporting abuse to state agencies. But it certainly had that effect. Again, American (and other) bishops and chancery officials got the impression that the Vatican did not want them to make abuse cases public. Was this impression inadvertent and mistaken? I do not think so. The Vatican’s desire to maintain a bella figura is well know, and I have not seen one scrap of evidence that bishops were ever asked if they had fulfilled their legal duty (in some states) to report abuse. In fact, Msgr. Scicluna’s recent remarks make it clear that the Vatican does not want bishops to report abusive priests to state authorities unless the bishops are legally required to do so.

The Code of Canon Law also has no consideration for victims. This was a lack, and I have seen no attempts to correct it.

In the most generous interpretation, the Vatican inadvertently contributed to the toleration of sexual abuse. Benedict should have acknowledged at least that, but he did not do so. Either he is maintaining a willful blindness about the Vatican’s own responsibility in tolerating abuse, or he fears that acknowledging responsibility would open up the Vatican to lawsuits.

There has been no full confession; therefore there is no true repentance.

Leave a Comment

Ratzinger and Hullermann

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Germany, Responsibility, Vatican 8 Comments Tags: , ,

Ratzinger’s action or inaction led to a child being molested.

 

Sometimes before 1980 the Rev. Peter Hullermann plied a boy with alcohol and then molested him. The parents went to the diocese, who told them not to go to the police, that the case would be handled inside the Church, and that Hullermann would never work with children again (Number 3 Lie after The check is in the mail and I will love you in the morning).

 

In 1980 the diocese of Essen sent Hullermann to Munich for treatment. Ratzinger, as archbishop, allowed him to live in a rectory. This is Ratzinger’s last involvement with the case that the Vatican admits.

 

The vicar general, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber, on his own authority allowed Hullermann to work in the parish.  The Hullermann molested another child, apparently very soon after he came to Munich, possibly while Ratzinger was still archbishop of Munich. In 1986 Hullermann was convicted of this molestation, but was returned to parish work in Garching, where he remained until 2008, working with the youth of the parish.

 

In 2008 he was transferred to a pilgrimage church in Bad Tölz, where least until a few days ago he was an active priest.

 

The Vatican has been attacking the media for reporting the facts, but has not denied the facts.

 

Why did Ratzinger turn the case over to Gruber and not follow up on it to learn what had happened? The Vatican says that Ratzinger was busy, with 1,200 priest in his archdiocese. Too busy to protect children? Alas, that has been the problem all along. And even in the United States (and Boston had 1,200 priests) bishops at least followed abuse cases and made the decisions (generally bad ones) and did not simply hand the cases over to subordinates. Why did Ratzinger, after he went to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and started handling these abuse cases, after he became pope, never trouble to find out what had happened to Hullermann?

 

An honorable man, a man of integrity, accepts responisility for the bad things that his lack of diligence allowed to happen. Is the Pope a man of integrity who will publicly admit his failure, or will he try to evade responsibility and blame the messengers for reporting his failure?

Leave a Comment

The Identity of Father “H”

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Germany, Vatican 5 Comments Tags: ,

 For some reason I do not understand, German newspapers will not print the names of convicted  criminals. However, the Italian press is more like the American. 

The abuser identified only as Father “H” in the German press has been identified as Peter Hullermann by La Stampa. He is still a priest in Bad Tölz in Germany. 

He was first in Munich, then in Garching, and after 2008 in Bad Tölz. 

Remember: Hullermann was sent to Munich for treatment; the vicar general under Ratzinger, Gruber, put Hullermann in a parish, where he abused again, and was convicted, He was returnedto parish work and remained an active priest until this week. 

«L’hanno spostato qua e là e lui ha continuato a comportarsi come prima», lamenta al telefono Wilfried F. È lui la vittima degli abusi che ha dato il via all’intera vicenda. Negli Anni 70, di ritorno da un’escursione, il parroco, allora ancora a Essen, gli diede degli alcolici, lo rinchiuse nella sua camera, lo spogliò e lo costrinse a fare sesso orale. Quando lo venne a sapere, spiega Wilfried F., la Chiesa preferì regolare la questione al proprio interno, senza far intervenire la magistratura. A lui, allora undicenne, assicurarono: «Quel prete non lavorerà più con i bambini». Invece, poco dopo, Hullermann fu trasferito a Monaco e, in seguito a una decisione presa non da Ratzinger ma dall’allora vicario generale Gerhard Gruber, si vide riassegnati incarichi pastorali. Di lì a qualche anno fu nuovamente accusato di pedofilia. Non tutti, tuttavia, lo ricordano con astio. Anzi. Quando lasciò la comunità di Garching, nel 2008, ci furono applausi a scena aperta e a qualcuno scapparono persino delle lacrime. Un rappresentante dei chierichetti sostenne persino che «Hullermann è riuscito a creare una chiesa giovane e a trasmettere in modo duraturo il suo amore per la liturgia alle giovani generazioni». 

In Essen in the 1970s, after plying a boy with liquor, Hullermann has oral sex with him. The church found out, put preferred to handle it internally rather than go to the police. But the victim was assured that the priest would never again work with children.” Hullermann was transferred to Munich with Ratzinger’s permission, and was supposed to receive treatment. The vicar general Gerhard Gruber, supposedly without Ratzinger’s knowledge, put Hullermann in a parish, There he again abused a child.  

When Hullermann left Garching in 2008, there was a scene of applause and tears. Hullermann had taken such an interest in the youth of the parish.

Peter Hullermann is at the left

 

 

Leave a Comment

German Reactions

in clergy sex abuse scandal, sexual abuse, Vatican 6 Comments Tags: ,

Although the abuse that has been revealed in Germany is neither as widespread or as deeply corrupt as the abuse that was revealed in the U.S. and Ireland (let me simply say that some priests found novel uses for the Eucharist and the crucifix), the revelations in Germany have shaken the Vatican more than the news from the “English-speaking” countries, as one cardinal dismissed them. 

Matthias Drobinski has a good commentary in the Süddeutsche Zeitung to explain the severity of the German reaction. He concludes: 

Die Kirche ist nicht in die Vertrauenskrise geraten, weil sie ein Verein von Missbrauchern ist. Sie ist in der Krise, weil sie sich immer noch stärker selbst bemitleidet, statt den Opfern zu helfen, zum Beispiel mit einem Entschädigungsfonds. Sie ist in der Krise, weil sie nicht zugeben will, dass der Priester- und Ordensberuf Männer mit sexuellem Identitätsproblem anzieht. Es ist eine Krise, die das gesamte Land angeht, weil in der Kirche bislang eine Nähe und Wärme möglich war, die anderswo in der Gesellschaft knapp geworden ist. Dieses knappe Gut könnte sie nun verspielen. Auch da ist nun der Papst gefragt. 

The Church does not suffer from a crisis of confidence because it is a society of abusers. It is in a crisis, because it ever more strongly pities itself, instead of helping the victims, for example with a fund for damages. It is in a crisis, because it willl not admit that the priestly and religious life attracts men with problems of sexual idenity. It is in a crisis that concerns the whole country, because until now in the Church were possible a neighborliness and warmth that scarcely exist elsewhere in society.  This good, which is in short supply, can now be lost.  And now the Pope is questioned. 

The Vatican’s touchy reaction, which tries to make the Pope look like a victim, is understandable but wrong-headed.  The Pope, even if he is being unfairly criticized, is not the victim: the abused children are the victims.

Leave a Comment

What Ratzinger Knew in 1988

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Vatican 15 Comments Tags: , , ,

On July, 8, 1988, Archbishop Levada of Portland , Oregon, wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, about the case of the Rev. Thomas Laughlin.

 

Laughlin, Levada explains, was ordained in 1948 at the age of 23. Levada continues, “he began homosexual contacts with boys shortly after his ordination (about age 25), and admitted to such misconduct both during his first priestly assignment as a teacher at Central Catholic High School, and as a pastor of St. Mary Parish in Corvallis. These contacts continued and apparently increased in frequency and number during his tenure as pastor of All Saints Parish until the time criminal charges of sexual abuse of minors were brought against him in 1983.”

 

“The reliable testimony of several boys questioned suggests that Fr. Laughlin used the confessional for purposes of solicitation.

 

“Even after his conviction, sentence, and having served six months in prison, he abused the privilege of his court ordered parole under the aegis of the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico by arranging for a secret liaison with one of the young men he had molested, and paid for his journey to meet him in San Diego for the purposes of engaging in sexual conduct.”

 

Archbishop Power of Portland had known about the abuse by at least 1975 and had not acted on it. That is not surprising, since in 1976 Power had received this letter from an official of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate Seminary in British Columbia in which the official conveyed information from a “most reliable source” about Philip Steigerwald:

 

PHILIP STEIGERWALD, presently working in Queen of Peace, Salem, Oregon, scheduled to be ordained to the Priesthood on the 20th day of June , 1976, is an avowed homosexual.

 

 He rationalizes that neither the world nor the Church, at the present time, understands the beauty and good in such a relationship. His companion, at the present time, is another seminarian at Mount Angel (redacted). Philip has practiced homosexuality since thirteen years of age and claims to have been initiated into this practice by his confessor at that time.

 

This situation is known to his mother, some of his family and, at least two or more seminarians.

 

Archbishop Power found this letter no reason not to ordain Steigerwald, who of course made sexual advances to boys in his parish. Years later, their mother found out, and talked to a priest, who told them “that the archdiocese knew before they ordained Phil that he was a homosexual.” The mother wanted an explanation. So do I. The most probable one is not flattering to the personal moral conduct of Archbishop Power.

 

Ratzinger may not have known about the type of person who Power thought was suitable for the priesthood, but he certainly knew there were severe problems in the Church in the United States. Why the failure to act effectively?  Did Ratzinger tell himself these must be bizarre and isolated cases – but he was getting them on a regular basis. Or was he following John Paul’s implicit or explicit instructions about how to handle sexual abuse cases discretely and quietly? As Pope Benedict, Ratzinger owes the Church an explanation.

Leave a Comment

My Advice to the Pope

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Vatican 25 Comments Tags: ,

What could the Pope do, as one person asked? 

Many, many things: 

He should immediately remove from the clergy all bishops who are known to be corrupt and abusers. There are about twenty, starting with Mr. Sanchez of Santa Fe (he of girlfriends A, B, C, D, E…). 

He should immediately remove from the cardinalate, and probably from the clergy, all Cardinals who have known about the abuse of children and let it go on. We should have Mr. Law and Mr. Mahony. 

He should order all dioceses and religious orders to publish the names of all known abusers and to open their archives to researchers. 

He should admit the failures of his predecessors, at least of Paul VI and John Paul II, who were informed of the abuse and refused to act against it.  

He should halt the processes for their canonization. Those Popes failed, and children were raped and committed suicide. 

He should discuss the sources of his own blindness for so many years. I have documents with his signature on them: he knew about some of the worst cases, such as El Paso. Did he really have no idea of what had occurred in the cases he handled? 

He should take up world-wide collection for the victims of abuse and sell a few items from the Vatican to pay into this fund. 

If Benedict does at least this, perhaps bishops through to the world will know he is serious and then and only then will they stop their clergy from abusing young people. Until then, it is all hot air, and his comments will be ignored as so much PR.

Leave a Comment

Benedict and Joseph

in clericalism, Narcissism, Vatican 1 Comment Tags: , ,

Benedict, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, eyed the cult of personality in the Catholic Church (including the cult surrounding John Paul II) with a hairy eyeball. He did not want a cult of personality when he became Pope, and his sometimes unconsidered remarks and actions have guaranteed that there is no cult of personality for Papa Benedetto.

In Africa, Benedict, according to CNA, gave an address to priests and made two important points:

He continued speaking to the priests saying they “cannot occupy center stage; [they are] a servant, a humble instrument pointing to Christ, who offers himself in sacrifice for the salvation of the world.” This, Benedict taught, is how Origen understood Joseph and Jesus’ relationship to be, “Joseph understood that Jesus was superior to him even as he submitted to him, and, knowing the superiority of his charge, he commanded him with respect and moderation.”

That is, the priest (and the bishops and the pope) are not supposed to attract attention to themselves, but be mere pointers to the true Savior, Jesus Christ. Would that pompous ritualists and would-be Las Vegas comedians who use the Mass as their stage would follow his advice! They won’t.

Priests should realize they are often in the position of Joseph who had fatherly authority over Jesus. In the flock committed to them there are often people far, far superior to the priest in holiness of life and growth in spirituality. The priest (and bishop and the pope), because of his office, has an essential role in governing the Church, but he is almost always governing people often far better than he is. This humbling thought should cause church authorities to exercise their office with care and discretion, in a spirit of service. One can always hope.

Leave a Comment