sexual abuse

The Quality of Mercy

in clergy sex abuse scandal, guilt, Psychology 10 Comments Tags: , ,

In reading the cases of sexual abuse, I pity the victims, but I often pity the abusers, who are often psychopaths on a straight path to hell. They must be punished, both to affirm  justice and to waken them to the enormity of their acts. Punishment is necessary for justice, and justice is necessary if the universe is to be rational and life is to be worth living (see this blog). But only a psychopath can inflict pain, even necessary pain, without feeling anything. 

When I awake at three in the morning from troubled dreams after working on cases of sexual abuse, I turn to the sermons of John Chrysostom. In his Sermon 43 on Acts, he has these thoughts:  

Let us have a soul apt to sympathize, let us have a heart that knows how to feel with others in their sorrows; no unmerciful temper, no inhumanity. 

God punishes, and shall I grieve for those that He is punishing? Year, verily: for God Himself that punishes wishes this: since neither does He Himself wish to punish, nay, even Himself grieves when punishing.  

We see men–slayers, wicked men, suffering punishment, and we are distressed, and grieve for them. Let us not be philosophical beyond measure: let us show ourselves pitiful, that we may be pitied; there nothing equal to this beautiful trait: nothing so much marks us the stamp of human nature as the showing pity, as the being kind to our fellow-man. 

It is this sympathy, this empathy, this feeling for the sufferings of others that abusers (and bishops) almost universally lacked. Research is being done on whether brain structure affects the ability to feel empathy, and there is more and more evidence that it does. I wonder whether they psychology tests that are being given to prospective seminarians are misdirected: they should not be looking so much for sexual disorders as for signs of psychopathy. I wish prospective bishops also had to undergo such tests.

Leave a Comment

Celibacy and Sexual Abuse

in Celibacy, clergy sex abuse scandal, Uncategorized 4 Comments Tags: ,

 Richard Cross at Catholic Culture has dose some thoughtful guessimating about the rates of sexual abuse among the clergy in the Catholic Church and the clergy in the Anglican Church. 

It has to be guess work because the Anglican churches are not very forthcoming with statistics. However, I have collected material on the Anglican Church in Australia and I know that that church has a major problem with clerics, including married clerics, abusing minors. 

How does it compare with the Catholic situation. Read the details of Cross’s estimates, but I think his conclusion is reasonable. Much depends on the ordination rate of Anglican clergy, data which is simply not available for Australia. Using two estimates of the ordination rate Cross concludes: 

Hence it would be useful to create a range of ordination estimates; cutting the rate in half, yields an abuser rate estimate of 4.4%, whereas doubling the ordination rate yields an abuser rate estimate of 3.0%. The range in values contains the Roman Catholic rate of 4.0%, and in either extreme is not far distant from it. 

But no one has gathered statistics for churches, so any claim that the rate of abuse by Catholic clergy is more, or less, or about the same as other churches, is almost entirely guess work. 

I suspect that sexual abuse is higher in churches in which the clergy have a lot of prestige and therefore a lot of control over the members of the church: Catholic, Anglican, and also Pentecostal and charismatic churches in which the minister is seen as “the Lord’s anointed.” 

However, no one has done any studies, which is odd in this environment. It would be nice to have some facts rather than emotional tirades against celibacy. 

BTW, Cross’s estimate of 4% of Catholic priests is too low. Even with the numbers the bishops have released, it is more like 5%, and in the dioceses in the attorney generals or lawyers have forced full revelation, the percentage is or like 9-10%.

Leave a Comment

The Necessity and Impossibility of Justice

in clergy sex abuse scandal, repentance, Responsibility 8 Comments Tags: , ,

Julián Carrón, the president of Communion and Liberation, in a letter to La Republica, has written the most profound reflection on sexual abuse in the Church I have seen so far.

None of us has ever been as dismayed as we are in front of the heart-wrenching story of child abuse. Our dismay arises from our inability to respond to the demand for justice which springs from the bottom of our hearts.

The request to assume responsibility, the acknowledgement of the evil committed, the reprimand for the mistakes made in the handling of the affair – all of this seems to us to be totally inadequate as we face this sea of evil. Nothing seems to be enough. And so we can understand the frustrated reactions that have been coming forth at this time.

This has all served the purpose of making us stand face to face with our demand for justice, acknowledging that it is limitless, bottomless – as deep as the wound itself. Since it is infinite, it can never be satisfied. So the dissatisfaction, impatience and even the disillusionment of the victims are understandable, even after all the injuries and mistakes have been admitted: nothing can satisfy their thirst for justice. It’s like entering into an endless struggle. From this point of view, the ones who committed the abuse are paradoxically facing a challenge similar to that of the victims: nothing can repair the damage that has been done. This in no way means that their responsibility can be lifted, and much less the verdict that justice may impose upon them; it would not be enough even if they were to serve the maximum sentence.

(snip)

It is the Pope who, paradoxically, in his disarming boldness, has not fallen prey to reducing justice to any sort of human measure. To begin with, he admitted without hesitation the gravity of the evil committed by priests and religious, urged them to accept their responsibility for it, and condemned the way certain bishops in their fear of scandal have handled the affair, expressing his deep dismay over what had happened and taking steps to ensure that it not happen again. But then, he expressed his full awareness that this is not enough to respond to the demand that there be justice for the harm inflicted: “I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated.” Likewise, even if the perpetrators serve their sentences, repent, and do penance, it will never be enough to repair the damage they did to the victims and to themselves.

Benedict XVI’s recognition of the true nature of our need, of our struggle, is the only way to save our full demand for justice; it is the only way to take it seriously, to take it fully into consideration. “The demand for justice is a need that is proper to man, proper to a person. Without the possibility of something beyond, of an answer that lies beyond the existential modalities that we can experience, justice is impossible… If the hypothesis of a ‘beyond’ were eliminated, that demand would be unnaturally suffocated” (Father Giussani). So how did the Pope save this demand? By calling on the only one who can save it, someone who makes the beyond present in the here and now, namely, Christ, the Mystery made flesh. “Jesus Christ … was Himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, He still bears the wounds of His own unjust suffering. He understands the depths of your pain and its enduring effect upon your lives and your relationships, including your relationship with the Church.” Calling on Christ is not a way to seek a hiding place to run off to in the face of the demand for justice: it is the only way to bring justice about.

If the universe is irrational, life is meaningless. A universe without justice is irrational. But how can wrongs ever be righted, how can justice ever be fulfilled. Sexual abuse brings into focus the evil in ever wrong action: the good creation has been damaged, and can never be repaired, because the past cannot be changed.

When a person who has done wrong (and all are sinners) faces this, he knows that the wrong he has done in his life is irreparable. No matter what he does, he can never meet the demands of justice. Justice can never be satisfied, and a universe without justice is irrational and meaningless, and life is not worth living.

Unless justice can be satisfied, life is meaningless. But man can never satisfy justice, he cannot restore life to the murdered, innocence to the defiled. Only an uncreated power not bounded by space or time can do that, and can do it in a way that we can only dimly begin to understand.

Christ bears the wounds of his unjust suffering for all eternity, but now they are glorified. What does that mean for us, for the human sinners and the human victims? – eye has not seen not ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what it means, but the faith that it means something, that somehow in the end God will vindicate all victims, that He will right all wrongs, that He will wipe away the tears from every eye, is the faith of a Church that now sees but in a glass darkly.

Leave a Comment

German Numbers

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Germany 1 Comment Tags: ,

I earlier speculated that the seemingly lesser number of victims in Germany may have been the result of prosecutions in the 1930s. It looks like David Clohessy was correct: that was an illusion. The Church just opened a counseling hot line. Der Standard reports

Am ersten Tag versuchten 4460 Anrufer durchzukommen, nur 162 hatten Erfolg.

On the first day 4460 callers tried to get through only 162 were successful.

Nor are the laity ignoring or enduring the ignominy. In Austria and Germany, one belongs legally to a Church and pays a church tax. One can officially leave the church. Officials report that compared to the same month last year, resignations from the Catholic Church have risen anywhere from 47% to 500%.

Leave a Comment

Grinding the Faces of the Oppressed

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

The NYT has the story of how everyone: bishops, priests, Pope, police, failed the deaf children who were molested by Father Murphy. Some critics have asked why victims sometimes take so long to come forward. As the experience of the deaf children showed, even going directly to the police, even leafleting in front of the cathedral did no good. No one would listen to them, no one would help them. 

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. 

Throughout history, the poor, the disadvantaged, the weak, have suffered for the convenience of the important, the wealthy, the powerful. It has been no different in the Church or the state.  

In the 1970s, a group of former students who were in a vocational rehabilitation program in Milwaukee began telling their hearing supervisors about Father Murphy, a sequence of events reported in two articles in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2006. 

Among the supervisors was John Conway, now the deputy administrator of workers’ compensation for the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Conway, the students and others collected affidavits from 15 to 20 former students about Father Murphy’s violations. They were granted a meeting with Archbishop William E. Cousins.

“In my extreme naïveté,” said Mr. Conway in an interview on Friday, “I told them the archbishop would take care of this.”

He said they were surprised to find the room packed with people, including several nuns and teachers from the school, two priests who said they were representing the apostolic delegate in Chicago, and Father Murphy himself.

Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Father Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Father Murphy staring at the floor. The deaf men and their advocates were told that Father Murphy, the school’s director and top fund-raiser, was too valuable to be let go, so he would be given only administrative duties.

They were outraged. They distributed “Wanted” posters with Father Murphy’s face outside the cathedral in Milwaukee. They went to the police departments in Milwaukee, where they were told it was not the correct jurisdiction, and in St. Francis, where the school was located, Mr. Conway said. They also went to the office of E. Michael McCann, the district attorney of Milwaukee County, and spoke with his assistant, William Gardner.

“A criminal priest was an oxymoron to them,” Mr. Conway said. “They said they’ll refer it to the archdiocese.”

Murphy was Important, he was a fund raiser, the Archbishop was Important, the District Attorney was Important – the deaf children were not Important – they could be ignored. 

The final vindication of the oppressed will come someday, at the end of history, but even now God or History gives signs that the oppressed poor are not forever forgotten, that their cries to Heaven for vengeance will be heard, that their vindication will come.

Leave a Comment

Vatican Corruption

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Pope Benedict, Vatican 23 Comments Tags: , , ,

John Paul II and Paul VI did not listen to the cries of violated children. Why?

I have a few sources with Vatican connections and have received fairly reliable second-hand information, and my guess at the scenario is this. 

John Paul, for reasons he refused to explain even to a cardinal who questioned him, would not act against abusers. John Paul was a lousy judge of character. His priest–“friends” in the Krakow chancery were all in the pay of the Communist secret police, and gave them detailed information about the precise location of Wojtyla’s bed, which medicines he took, who his pharmacist was, etc. The priests were supplying information potential assassins in return for permission to study aboard for career advancement. When this was finally discovered after the fall of communism, John Paul’s secretary kept it from him –  why disturb an old man, he explained. 

The only explanation John Paul gave for his refusal to act against prominent abusers is that “they” wouldn’t let him act – a nameless they, but in the context, the curia. There are persistent stories that the Vatican offcials recieved gifts, such as $100,000 mass stipends, from Maciel, and priests who belonged to the Legion and to the congregation founded by fake stigmatist Gino Burresi worked for Sodano, protecting their corrupt bosses 

Ratzinger was an academic; I presume his first contact with the case of a sexually abusive priest was in Munich; he did not handle the Hullermann case well- he simply turned it over to a subordinate and did not check up on it. When he became head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger, as John Allen explains, got only a few abuse cases, mostly involving solicitation in the confessional. The others went to other dicasteries, which mishandled them. 

Ratzinger was determined to crack down, and therefore took over all the cases in 2002. He was horrified by what he read, but was limited in what he could do by John Paul and especially by Sodano. He was determined to end the abuse if he became pope, and has done a lot, although not enough, especially in regard to bishops. 

But the full truth has not come out, and secrecy lets the cancer spread. There have been worse situations. As the book Fallen Order demonstrates from contemporary documents, a 17th century pope appointed a man he knew was a sexual abuser to head the Piarists – which then collapsed as the members who were sincere Christians rebelled against the papal attempt to make them a pedophile organization. 

Secrecy may bring about worse disasters. Probably 7-10% of priests have had sexual contact with minors; maybe a smaller percentage of bishops, but still a substantial number of bishops are abusers. Have cardinals abused minors? Suppose one of them becomes pope? The papacy survived the pornocracy of the 9th century and the corruption of the Renaissance, but the internet would flash the news around the word if a pope was accused of abuse. Could the effectiveness of the papacy survive that? 

Leave a Comment

Vindicating the Victims

in Catholic Church, clergy sex abuse scandal, Pope Benedict, repentance, Responsibility, Vatican, Voluntarism 10 Comments Tags: , ,

 We are witnessing a cruel irony of history: Joseph Ratzinger, one of the few ecclesiastics to evidence genuine horror at the sexual abuse of children by priests and the one pope since perhaps Pius V to act against corruption in the Church, is receiving a massive international attack for his failures in handling abuse cases. 

It is not entirely undeserved. Ratzinger worked within the system and accepted how it handled sexual abusers: treatment and secrecy, and no regard for the victims. He seems to have come to a genuine awakening and determined to change the Church once he became pope, and he did immediately act against abusers, such as Maciel, whom John Paul had protected. 

But Ratzinger too had failed to protect children, chiefly through negligence. At the very least, he did not monitor Peter Hullermann, he did not forbid Hullermann to work in a parish, he did not read the memo (perhaps) that Hullermann has been assigned to parish work within days of arriving in Munich for therapy for the “disease” of pedophilia. 

Nor in the correspondence I have read in other cases did Ratzinger, the son of a policeman, ever suggest that the police be contacted, or that victims be cared for. 

He was disgusted by the behavior of the abusers, but he did not show much awareness of the harm that was being done to the victims.  

Criminal justice is necessary to vindicate the victim. The criminal, especially the sexual abuser, had by his actions shown he regards his victim as sub-human, as a mere object for his use. When the community punishes the criminal, it vindicates the victim, demonstrating that it regards the victim as a person whose worth is recognized. This is true of the penal sanctions of the state and of the Church. 

Commentators on the Commonweal blog defended Ratzinger’s decision not to laicize the abuser Murphy at the end of his life – why Murphy was no longer a threat to children, and to laicize him before his death would have been “vindictive.” Yes, precisely, it would have vindicated the victims, as criminal prosecution would have done. 

Ratzinger was simply following policies of the pontificates of John Paul and probably John XXIII; but if he were to point this out, he would be asked the question – Why then are you canonizing these men as saints? 

Underlying Ratzinger’s failure was of course clericalism and a desire to preserve the image of the priesthood. But even deeper than that is a voluntaristic tendency in Western morality that he himself has noticed and criticized. God forbids certain actions not arbitrarily (as the voluntarists says), but because the actions harm the goodness and beauty of the creatures whom He made and loves. 

Therefore God forbids sexual abuse because it harms both the abuser and the victim. Even if the abuser repents (and which ones ever have?) the harm to the victim remains, and can never really be undone. It must be atoned for – but atonement, expiation, has vanished from the Catholic mind, and has even been explicitly rejected by the head of the German bishops’ conference. Of course, because otherwise the bishops and the pope would have much to atone for, and atonement is humiliating and painful, and bishops and popes do not like to be humiliated.

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

Scicluna on Maciel

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Maciel, Vatican 11 Comments Tags: , , ,

In his interview, Msgr. Scicluna, who was the Vatican investigator in the Maciel case, refers directly but not by name to Maciel. Spanish-language newspapers have picked this up, but the English-language press may have missed it: 

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”. Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious. 

(snip) 

In sixty percent of cases there has been no trial, above all because of the advanced age of the accused, but administrative and disciplinary provisions have been issued against them, such as the obligation not to celebrate Mass with the faithful, not to hear confession, and to live a retired life of prayer. It must be made absolutely clear that in these cases, some of which are particularly sensational and have caught the attention of the media, no absolution has taken place. It’s true that there has been no formal condemnation, but if a person is obliged to a life of silence and prayer, then there must be a reason… 

This is what Benedict did: he did not try Maciel, but obliged him to lead a retired life of prayer and penance. 

Benedict had reversed John Paul’s policy of protecting and encouraging Maciel, and feels it somewhat unjust that he, Benedict, is now being criticized. But he should explain how Maciel managed to escape for decades, who Maciel’s protectors were, how John Paul could have made such an egregious mistake. Until Benedict is completely honest and open about the failure of the Church, his own integrity will be questioned.

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

Defenders of Benedict

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

Joseph Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich –  Freising from 1977 to 1982. In 1980 there were about 1200 diocesan priests in that archdiocese.

 

In 1980 there were also about 1200 diocesan priest in the Boston archdiocese.

 

In Boston there have been about 200 priests (diocesan and religious) accused of sexual abuse.

 

Therefore it would be surprising if there had been no abuse in the Munich archdiocese during Ratzinger’s tenure, or that no case of former abuse came to light during his tenure. 

 

If that is true, it shows a radical difference between the behavior of priests in Boston and in Munich.

 

Msgr. Scicluna defended Benedict in an interview. Sciculna was the investigator who gathered evidence about Maciel, evidence that convinced Benedict that Maciel was guilty.

 

Scicluna is correct that Benedict has acted far more aggressively against sexual abusers than any recent pope, and that it is almost unfair that he is bearing the brunt of the criticism. Scicluna does not say it, but John Paul’s failures were egregious.

 

However even Scicluna reveals failures in the Vatican. 

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”. Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious. 

It took 18 years to clarify the status of the cases of sexual abusers? I have correspondence between American bishops and Ratzinger during those years. Who was responsible for the delay? I suspect John Paul, and that should be taken into account in the process for his canonization.

 

Scicluna (and presumably Benedict) clearly does not want bishops to report crimes to the police.

Q: A recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.

A: In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law.

Q: And what about countries where bishops do not have this legal obligation?

A: In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual – and not only spiritual – assistance to those victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the plaintiffs, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they involve the civil authorities in the interests of victims and to avoid other crimes.

The interviewer does not bring up, nor does Scicluna address, the issue of bishops who have tolerated and enabled abusers. That, even more than the abuse, is the source of the crisis.

Leave a Comment

Pope Benedict Let a Known Pedophile Work in His Diocese in Germany

in clergy sex abuse scandal, repentance, Responsibility 10 Comments Tags: , ,

As the Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Joseph Ratzinger  let a pedophile work in his diocese. The London Times reports 

 

The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal for the first time tonight as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The priest went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as priest in Upper Bavaria.

The priest was sent from Essen to Munich for “therapy” in 1980 when he was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex. The archdiocese confirmed that the Pope, then a cardinal, had approved a decision to accommodate the priest in a rectory while the therapy took place.

The priest, identified only as “H”, was subsequently convicted of sexually abusing minors after he was moved to pastoral work in nearby Grafing. In 1986 he was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence and fined 4,000 marks ($2,800 in today’s money). There have been no formal accusations against him since.

The church has been accused of a cover-up after at least 170 accusations of child abuse by German Catholic priests. The scandal broke in January but the claims, which continue to emerge, span three decades. Critics say that priests were redeployed to other parishes rather than fired when they were found to be abusing children.

The archdiocese of Munich and Freising said there had been no complaints against the priest during the therapy at a Church community in Munich. It said the decision to allow him to continue work in Grafing was taken by Gerhard Gruber, now 81, and then Vicar General of the archdiocese.

The Vatican noted in a statement that Monsignor Gruber had taken “full responsibility” for the priest’s move back into pastoral work but did not comment further.

Monsignor Gruber said the Pope, who was made a cardinal in 1977, had not been not aware of his decision because there were a thousand priests in the diocese at the time and he had left many decisions to lower level officials.

“The cardinal could not deal with everything,” he said. “The repeated employment of H in pastoral duties was a serious mistake… I deeply regret that this decision led to offences against youths. I apologise to all those who were harmed.”

However, he did not indicate whether the convicted paedophile would be allowed to continue working in the Church.

The Pope was Archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982, then moved to Rome as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post he held until his election as pontiff five years ago after the death of John Paul II.

“H”, the priest, went on to work in an old people’s home for two years after his conviction then moved to the town of Garching where he became a curate and later a Church administrator. In May 2008 he was removed from his duties in Garching and was not allowed to work with your people, but he still works in the diocese, according to the newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which broke the story.  

In the cases in Germany I have studied, I have noticed that German courts give far lighter punishments for abuse than American courts do (this is true of all crimes).

 

Also note that the abuser was allowed to work in a parish until 1998 and is still an active priest. The rules about Zero Tolerance that American bishops made in order to save themselves (and their bank accounts) do not apply outside the United States.

 

It would be astonishing if Ratzinger had delegated such a sensitive decision to an underling. That alone would indicate a failure to take responsibility. 

 

As Edward Gibbons, no admirer of the clergy, recounted, Pope Gregory the Great took responsibility for the poor of the city of Rome. When a poor man was found starved to death in the streets, Pope Gregory suspended himself for a period as public penance for his failure.

 

John Paul and Benedict both failed to punish bishops who tolerated and enabled abuse. Perhaps Benedict could start by making an example of himself – and then proceed against other bishops. It would be a striking and historic confession of responsibility – it might redeem Benedict’s papacy, which is being tarnished almost beyond redemption by the continued revelations of sexual abuse by the clergy.

Leave a Comment

Repentance

in clergy sex abuse scandal, guilt, law enforcement, repentance, Responsibility 1 Comment Tags: , ,

When sinners repent, we are informed by the highest authority, the angels in heaven rejoice.

 

Michael Anthony Rodriguez paid a hit man to kill his wife because he was infatuated with a young woman. He was imprisoned in Texas, and with the Texas Seven escaped on Christmas Eve 2000. They killed a young police officer who had interrupted his holiday dinner to answer a call.

 

At his trial, Rodriguez claimed he had been abused in a Catholic high school in San Antonio by the Rev. Eugene Fitzsimmons and that the abuse and the consequent homosexuality led Rodriguez to bizarre behavior. Fitzsimmons was subpoenaed, but took the Fifth Amendment, even though Rodriguez later said the allegation of abuse and homosexuality was all a lie, an attempt to escape execution.

 

Rodriguez was sentenced to death. He wrote to the policeman’s widow. 

In a 2006 letter, Mr. Rodriguez told her he realized he owed her a debt he could never repay.

“Yet I can indeed offer a form of retribution to at least give you a sense of justice,” he wrote.

A federal judge approved his request to end his appeals Sept. 27, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a claim by Kentucky inmates that lethal injection there is inhumane. That case stalled executions around the nation until April, when the high court cleared the way for them to resume.  

Mr. Rodriguez had asked that there be no further appeals in his case, telling a judge that he hoped accepting his fate might help him enter heaven. 

His time to depart came on August 14, 2008, at 6:30 PM, as the Catholic Church began celebrating the feast of the Assumption of Mary into heaven. 

Immediately before his execution, Mr. Rodriguez apologized profusely to those affected by his crimes.

“My punishment is nothing compared to the pain and suffering I’ve brought you,” he said. “I’m not strong enough to ask for forgiveness. I ask the Lord to forgive. I’ve done horrible things that brought sorrow and pain to these wonderful people,” he said.

“I’m sorry, so sorry,” he said.

As the drugs took effect, Mr. Rodriguez was praying in a whisper. “I’m ready to go, Lord,” he said.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Nazis – Cleansers of the Church?

in clergy sex abuse scandal, Germany 10 Comments Tags: , ,

Abuse Tracker has chronicled the revelations of sexual abuse by clerics in Germany. It is a story of abuse and cover-ups all too familiar to those who have followed similar revelations in the United States and Ireland. While in quality the abuse in Germany is as bad as in English-speaking countries, in quantity it seems to be significantly less. If this is in fact the case, and not simply a matter of lesser reporting, peculiarities of European continental history may account for the lesser amount of abuse.

In the nineteenth century, Europe began to develop an image of Modern Man, and I mean man, not woman. The New Man was nationalistic, militaristic, rational, scientific. He rejected he world of Catholicism, which was international, pacifist, and superstitious – and feminine. In France, Italy, and Germany the Catholic clergy was attacked as the enemy of true masculinity.

Some who attacked the church more or less explicitly accused the clergy of perversion, either homosexuality or pedophilia.

The New Man took other incarnations in the twentieth century: The Futurist Man, the Fascist Man, and the Nazi Man. In the mid-1930s the Nazi government arrested hundreds of Catholic priests and brothers and charged them with sexual molestation of children and adolescent boys. (see the Wikepedia article) Historians have assumed that these charges were fabricated.

But what we have discovered about the Catholics clergy makes it appear probable that many of the charges were in fact true. The Nazis wanted to attack the Church, and the perverse and criminal behavior by a segment of the clergy gave them the tool. The cases, as far as I can tell, were tried in the regular German courts, not the Nazi courts, and in the regular German courts courts legality largely ruled.

The Nazis may have inadvertently done the Catholic Church in Germany a favor by purging hundreds of abusers from the ranks of the clergy. As a result of that purge, we may now be seeing fewer cases in Germany than in Ireland and the United States.

The memory of the trials of the Nazi era may explain, but not excuse, the touchiness of some German bishops. Germans have a long memory, and anything that reminds them of the Nazi era (Boy Scout uniforms, smoking bans) sets off irrational reactions.

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
«< 2 3 4 5 6 >