Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican fights to distance Pope from abuse scandals
Breitbart/AFP ^ | Mar 13, 2010

Posted on 03/13/2010 12:00:49 PM PST by presidio9

The Vatican on Saturday fought attempts to link Pope Benedict XVI to child sex abuse in a counteroffensive against the widening paedophilia scandals. "It is clearly evident that in the past few days there are some who have sought -- with a dogged focus on Regensburg and Munich -- elements to personally implicate the Holy Father in questions of abuse," spokesman Federico Lombardi said.

"It is clear that these efforts have failed," he said on Radio Vatican.

On Friday, the pope's former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.

Six years later, the priest was given a suspended prison sentence for child sex offences. The archdiocese said the priest in question still works in Bavaria, with no known repeat violations.

The disclosure added to a growing scandal in Germany that has already come close to Pope Benedict's brother Georg Ratzinger, a former choirmaster.

The first revelations emerged in January when an elite Jesuit school in Berlin admitted systematic sexual abuse of pupils by two priests in the 1970s and 1980s.

Among other boarding schools implicated is one attached to the Domspatzen ("Cathedral Sparrows"), Regensburg cathedral's thousand-year-old choir which was run for 30 years by the pope's older brother Ratzinger, who is now 86.

Earlier this week, Ratzinger said the alleged sexual abuse in the 1950s and 60s -- which was before his time -- was "never discussed".

However, in the latest revelations, former choirboy Thomas Mayer told German magazine Der Spiegel he had been raped by older members of the choir and that Ratzinger had violent fits of outrage during rehearsals.

"Ratzinger, I saw him extremely angry and irascible during rehearsals,"

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

1 posted on 03/13/2010 12:00:49 PM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
On Friday, the pope's former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.

I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?

2 posted on 03/13/2010 12:08:42 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I love the highly leading title of this piece of "journalism."

They can't get around the fact that the abuse in question allegedly took place in 1958 and that Benedict XVI was bishop of that jurisdiction from 1977 to 1981.

Additionally, from 1951-1977 he was not even involved with the administration of the diocese in any way - he was a university professor. He did not even live in Regensburg until 1969.

He was not even consecrated a bishop until 1977 at the age of 50 - his appointment as Archbishop of Germany's largest diocese was seen at the time as something that came completely out of nowhere.

3 posted on 03/13/2010 12:16:50 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

So you are suggesting that he approved the housihg knowing the priest who is ACCUSED of forcing an 11 year old....

Or else

Why is there such an attack on all things Christian, and if it’s not a direct attack, it’s the ‘suspicion’ or the accusation without directly accusing. But either works, the ACCUSED is tortured in the media, found guilty ....even before guilt is proven.

Or Evil is being less restrained in the world now.


4 posted on 03/13/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I love the highly leading title of this piece of “journalism.”
They can’t get around the fact that the abuse in question allegedly took place in 1958 and that Benedict XVI was bishop of that jurisdiction from 1977 to 1981.

Additionally, from 1951-1977 he was not even involved with the administration of the diocese in any way - he was a university professor. He did not even live in Regensburg until 1969.

He was not even consecrated a bishop until 1977 at the age of 50 - his appointment as Archbishop of Germany’s largest diocese was seen at the time as something that came completely out of nowhere.

3 posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:16:50 PM by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)


Right onedoug isn’t himself accusing, he’s asking why would he do that???? Nevermind that someone might actually read the details,.....most won’t but onedoug’s comment makes up their mind for them, although never outright accusing anyone himself...


5 posted on 03/13/2010 12:20:57 PM PST by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Ratzinger should have tossed him out onto the street, guilty or not. Right?


6 posted on 03/13/2010 12:26:44 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Quix; the_conscience; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7

*widening paedophilia scandals*

We shall know them by their fruits.


7 posted on 03/13/2010 12:28:56 PM PST by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?

The diocesan functionary who was this particular priest's direct superior, Gerhard Gruber, has admitted to the press that he concealed the true nature of this particular priest's troubles by simply claiming that he needed to be housed in a psychiatric facility because of mental problems.

Msgr. Gruber has formally apologized for his actions.

I would also point out that in the 1970s, psychiatrists were very insistent that they were able to "cure" pedophilia and other deviant dispositions through therapy. We know a lot more today about what is and is not possible regarding these matters.

I don't think it's Msgr. Gruber's fault that he took the psychiatric profession at their word and believed and hoped that therapy would work. They were the professionals and he sought their advice.

8 posted on 03/13/2010 12:29:44 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug; All

Is anyone ELSE experiencing a Croakly-esque sense of deja vu here?? Same pattern, different decade..not Clinton now but Obama. Another concerted attack on the Catholic church. Coincidence? You decide.


9 posted on 03/13/2010 12:31:44 PM PST by cake_crumb (RR on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
We shall know them by their fruits.

So the actions of one individual are another individual's "fruits"?

There is no church, even the Reformed Church, that is free of similar scandals.

Predators - whether they are Catholic or Reformed or Jewish - seek out opportunities to prey on children. And, like most sociopaths, they are very good at deceiving normal, decent people.

When they are caught, like most sociopaths, they know exactly what to say: they express remorse and plead for forgiveness and they cite the Scriptures their superiors teach as arguments that they should be forgiven.

Predators can infiltrate the most devout communities, and they do so by depending on the Christian charity of the community's members to give them the benefit of the doubt, to avoid spreading gossip, to assume the best of all people, etc.

10 posted on 03/13/2010 12:39:45 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

“Approved housing?” Hardly like putting him in charge of the youth camps. After one came forward, there were no other accusers, and no later revelations?

Seems to me that its reasonable, after one accusation, to avoid putting the guy where he’ll be in charge of minors. But you’re talking of people who often have no money of their own, and no outside line of work.

This sounds like scandal-mongering. If there’s any “there” there, I expect the author would have mentioned it.


11 posted on 03/13/2010 12:54:25 PM PST by dangus (Democrats: People retardants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg
There is no church, even the Reformed Church, that is free of similar scandals.

No other church or denomination can compare in sheer number or cover ups

All men are sinners, but unlike priests we do not claim to act as Christ..

12 posted on 03/13/2010 1:08:11 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Plenty of fruits in your neighborhood, goober.
13 posted on 03/13/2010 1:10:41 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus; All
"This sounds like scandal-mongering. If there’s any 'here' there, I expect the author would have mentioned it."

If he were an Obama supporter, it would (rightly) be called a "smear".

14 posted on 03/13/2010 1:15:04 PM PST by cake_crumb (RR on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

EXACTLY what has that statement got to do with what is an obvious setup of an innocent man??


15 posted on 03/13/2010 1:16:21 PM PST by cake_crumb (RR on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
No other church or denomination can compare in sheer number or cover ups

BS. The religion of public education far exceeds the aggregate and percentage of criminals masquerading as Priests. However, that denomination; with it's capped liability limits, of atheists isn't a target of your cabal.

16 posted on 03/13/2010 1:16:30 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Never a word about sexual abuse committed by Unitarian/Universalist “ministers” or Reform “rabbis”.Is it that they never abuse....or is it something else...something *far* more cynical?
17 posted on 03/13/2010 1:17:49 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Speaking of scandals, has anyone looked into the way the WCC has been shilling for Obie care?? I continue to question the timing of this attack.


18 posted on 03/13/2010 1:31:53 PM PST by cake_crumb (RR on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

On Friday, the pope’s former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.

I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?


I don’t know the facts, but it is possible that he approved housing for many people, and had no idea the guy had been a pedophile. The wording is craftily ambiguous.


19 posted on 03/13/2010 1:36:37 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Anything worth doing, is worth doing badly at first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba; dangus; cake_crumb; wideawake; A.A. Cunningham; Freddd

Thanks guys. I’m satisfied Benedict did no wrong in this.


20 posted on 03/13/2010 2:40:17 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
No other church or denomination can compare in sheer number or cover ups

There are 1.15 billion Roman Catholics.

The next largest Christian communion are the Eastern Orthodox, who nominally have 210 million members.

The third are the Baptists with 105 million, the fourth Lutherans with 87 million and the fifth Anglicans with 82 million.

The Catholic Church is thus five times larger than any other communion and more than ten times larger than most other major communions.

All men are sinners, but unlike priests we do not claim to act as Christ..

No priest makes such a claim.

Christ acts through them - but this is the nature of any ministry. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:10 - "I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Like Paul, Catholic priests rightly acknowledge that their ministry is not really theirs, but Christ's.

21 posted on 03/13/2010 5:02:18 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
All men are sinners, but unlike priests we do not claim to act as Christ..
No priest makes such a claim.

That is your doctrine not mine

From catholic answers

It's incorrect to think that only the priest offers Mass. All the faithful share in the offering, even though the priest has a unique role. He stands "in the person of Christ," the historic Head of the Mystical Body, so that, at Mass, it is the whole body of Christ - Head and members together - that make the offering.

" When the priest faces the congregation, we can forget or misunderstand that only Christ is the source and giver of all grace. ad orientem avoids focusing attention on the personality and mannerisms of the celebrant and reminds us that the priest stands at the altar in persona Christi, offering the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary"

Link

22 posted on 03/13/2010 5:08:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

True.

However, Scripture reminds us all that the heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it . . .


23 posted on 03/13/2010 5:14:27 PM PST by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

True and well put.


24 posted on 03/13/2010 5:15:55 PM PST by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

INDEED.

QUITE SO.


25 posted on 03/13/2010 5:16:42 PM PST by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; the_conscience; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7
Ratzinger recently admitted he had "given slaps" at the beginning of his tenure and that he had always had a "bad conscience" about it and felt "relieved" when a law banning corporal punishment was made in the early 1980s.

Well, thank goodness for those laws to keep one on the straight and narrow. Had they past the law sooner he wouldn't have had to suffer so long with a bad conscience. Shame on them for not acting sooner. ;O)

26 posted on 03/13/2010 5:35:08 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
That's the Pauline doctrine.

"It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me" - standing in the person of Christ is not a novelty of "Catholic Answers" but a Scriptural fact.

That's the nature of the apostolic office.

27 posted on 03/13/2010 5:36:50 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

As long as Mahoney fills the chair in Los Angeles, whoever is pope, is complicit in a cover up. Has he left yet?


28 posted on 03/13/2010 5:38:05 PM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix
Well, thank goodness for those laws to keep one on the straight and narrow. Had they past the law sooner he wouldn't have had to suffer so long with a bad conscience. Shame on them for not acting sooner. ;O)

lol. Poor put-upon pope.

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, from 1981 to 2005 (24 years) Ratzinger was in charge of "investigating" the pederast priest sex abuse scandals.

Ratzinger tried mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal. And with a compliant press and a brainwashed congregation, he's succeeded to a shameful degree. So much so that they made him pope as a reward.

29 posted on 03/13/2010 7:35:51 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
No other church or denomination can compare in sheer number or cover ups All men are sinners, but unlike priests we do not claim to act as Christ..

Amen.


30 posted on 03/13/2010 10:47:15 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, from 1981 to 2005 (24 years) Ratzinger was in charge of "investigating" the pederast priest sex abuse scandals.

That's completely false, DE.

And you know it is.

The role of the Prefect of the CDF is that of the Vatican's chief theologian.

The purpose of that office is to oversee the teaching of theology in the Church's universities and seminaries and to review the theological writings of the various bishop's conferences as well as to author theological position papers.

That, after all, was the Pope's specific professional expertise: he was a theological advisor to the German episcopate at the Second Vatican Council and he spent 26 years as a professor of theology.

The office that in normal course was supposed to deal with cases of abuse by clergy was, not to surprisingly, the Congregation for the Clergy.

In 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger - displeased by the lackluster investigative progress of the Congregation for the Clergy - requested that this responsibility be transferred from them to his own CDF, his office.

And from that point on, there was a serious change: it is from that time that we see the Church launching systematic investigations, retiring bishops, demoting and laicizing offenders, meeting with victims' groups, putting together cooperation protocols with law enforcement and agreeing on restitution, etc.

Saying that he was in charge of such investigations from 1981 to 2001 is simply false. He was in charge of such investigations from 2001 to 2005 and only because he stood up and demanded that more be done and took that responsibility upon himself.

And it should also be remembered that the Church is not structured like a corporation: it is a society.

That society is governed by Canon Law and every Catholic has certain rights under Canon Law - just because there is a rumor or an allegation about a specific priest it does not mean that he can just be summarily excommunicated, fired and laicized. Just like the accused in a secular trial, he has rights under Canon Law including due process.

It is one thing to say that there is a rumor that a specific bishop had knowledge of specific crimes committed by a priest under his supervision. It is entirely another to prove that in a court of Canon Law.

31 posted on 03/14/2010 8:03:06 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
Dr. E-As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, from 1981 to 2005 (24 years) Ratzinger was in charge of "investigating" the pederast priest sex abuse scandals.

That's completely false, DE. And you know it is. The role of the Prefect of the CDF is that of the Vatican's chief theologian.

Actually, Dr. E is quite correct. This is what is stated in Wikipedia:


32 posted on 03/14/2010 9:15:49 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; wideawake; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
Actually, Dr. E is quite correct. This is what is stated in Wikipedia

Wikipedia, indeed.

Wikipedia fails to mention that when Joseph Ratzinger became the Prefect of the CDF in 1981, it was not authorized to investigate clerical abuse.

The CDF only became authorized to investigate such cases in 2001 - when Cardinal Ratzinger specifically requested that such authority be removed from the Congregation for the Clergy and transferred to the CDF. He made this request specifically because of his frustration with the slow progress being made by the Congregation of the Clergy.

Wikipedia, conveniently, forgets to mention that timeline and implies that Cardinal Ratzinger was the authority in charge of such investigations from 1981 until 2001 - which is certainly not the case.

The article also misrepresents his CDF letter of 2001. The point which that letter tried to make was that predators were using the seal of the confessional in order to cover their tracks.

As you likely know, anything you say in a confessional is a secret, and the confessor is morally bound to never break the seal of the confessional.

Predators would go to their bishop, ask to make a confession and then admit what they had done, specifically to shield themselves using the seal of the confessional.

This letter specifically affirmed that while the seal of the confessional was still inviolate, the usual privacy of ecclesiastical disciplinary proceedings could be dispensed with as long as the victim of the crime wanted to make them public.

The offender could no longer attempt to make the claim under Canon Law that his responses under disciplinary proceedings were to be treated as tantamount to the seal of confession.

33 posted on 03/14/2010 9:48:53 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Quix; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience
Ratzinger tried mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal.

Ratzinger tried FRoman Catholics try mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal.

34 posted on 03/14/2010 9:49:21 AM PDT by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
FRoman Catholics try mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal.

Not in the slightest.

Clearly there have been a sizable number of Catholic priests who have preyed upon children and there have been a significant number of prelates who have swept these crimes under the rug.

That's not a matter of dispute.

What is a matter of dispute are wild-eyed claims that there are thousands of child-molesting priests still serving in the Church and that every bishop in the Church is involved in coverups, and that the Pope conspired to assist the predators.

The actual, documented numbers are far smaller than the media would have us believe.

This does not mean that the problem did not exist. What it means is that the focus of the scandal's coverage now has nothing to do with assisting the actual victims - it is about pushing a political agenda.

The fact is, Gamecock, you hate the Catholic Church and would like nothing better than for it to cease to exist and for every Catholic to become a Five-Point Calvinist.

Your sentiment in this matter is so strong that you will promote any misrepresentation or exaggeration regarding the Catholic Church in order to further your personal theological agenda. Even if those misrepresentations come from the Christ-hating MSM of from a fake encyclopaedia website funded by a pornographer.

For my part, I don't agree with your theology. I also know that your own communion is not without its predators and its scandals.

However, I will draw the line at exaggerating the faults of or misrepresenting the actions of your communion - because it simply is not Christian to do so.

35 posted on 03/14/2010 10:11:54 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

***The actual, documented numbers are far smaller than the media would have us believe.***

Which explains the hundreds of millions of dollars shelled out by the Roman Catholic church to the victims of abuse.


36 posted on 03/14/2010 10:15:27 AM PDT by Gamecock (We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. (R.C. Sproul))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I'm sorry, wideawake. You're actually one of my favorite FReepers. You've been around a long time and your posts are generally incisive and thought-provoking.

But in this instance, I think the Roman Catholic apologist has blinders on. The Roman Catholic priesthood attracts pedophiles and homosexuals, and worse, it does very little to discourage them. Instead, because the problem is so historic, widespread and deep-seated, it continues unabated.

Ratzinger's 2001 letter, sent to the world's bishops, reiterated the punishment for anyone going outside the church with allegations of priest sexual abuse. It reminded the bishops that the result of someone going to a teacher or a police officer or a social worker or even to a parent with an allegation of sexual abuse against a priest would be excommunication for the accuser.

That was the purpose of the letter. It was a threat to anyone who would make public any deviant priest's conduct.

The real problem for Rome is that because Ratzinger sat on this scandal, and because men before and after him have tried to silence the victims and deny the crimes, and because men like Mahoney are still presiding over millions of Roman Catholics, and because RC doctrine instists that priests are "another Christ" (alther Christus), because of all these things the ugliness and destruction don't go away. Instead, they fester and grow and spread and continue to destroy children and families and lives and communities and churches.

The problem is endemic to who Rome says she is. Rome considers herself above reproach, even above the word of God. That hubris is at the core of this scandal. And it won't go away until Rome adheres to the Scriptures, and not the fallible pretensions of doddering sinful men who arrogantly believe themselves to be "another Christ."

Here's a recent story from AP. Ratzinger was personally at the center of this scandal which seems to know no end.

CHURCH SEX ABUSE SCANDAL HAS NOW REACHED THE POPE

VATICAN CITY — “Germany’s sex abuse scandal has now reached Pope Benedict XVI: His former archdiocese disclosed that while he was archbishop a suspected pedophile priest was transferred to a job where he later abused children.

The pontiff is also under increasing fire for a 2001 Vatican document he later penned instructing bishops to keep such cases secret.

The revelations have put the spotlight on Benedict’s handling of abuse claims both when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982 and then the prefect of the Vatican office that deals with such crimes – a position he held until his 2005 election as pope.

And they may lead to further questions about what the pontiff knew about the scope of abuse in his native Germany, when he knew it and what he did about it during his tenure in Munich and quarter-century term at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Benedict got a firsthand readout of the scandal Friday from the head of the German Bishop’s Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, who reported that the pontiff had expressed “great dismay and deep shock” over the scandal, but encouraged bishops to continue searching for the truth.

Hours later, the Munich archdiocese admitted that it had allowed a priest suspected of having abused a child to return to pastoral work in the 1980s, while Benedict was archbishop. It stressed that the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger didn’t know about the transfer and that it had been decided by a lower-ranking official.

The archdiocese said there were no accusations against the chaplain, identified only as H., during his 1980-1982 spell in Munich, where he underwent therapy for suspected “sexual relations with boys.” But he then moved to nearby Grafing, where he was suspended in early 1985 following new accusations of sexual abuse. The following year, he was convicted of sexually abusing minors.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement late Friday noting that the Munich vicar-general who approved the priest’s transfer had taken “full responsibility” for the decision, seeking to remove any question about the pontiff’s potential responsibility as archbishop at the time.

Victims’ advocates weren’t persuaded.”


37 posted on 03/14/2010 10:33:35 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Dutchboy88; the_conscience; Quix; ...

Ping to 37.


38 posted on 03/14/2010 10:34:54 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Quix; the_conscience; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7
We shall know them by their fruits.

I wonder how many became Born Again Christians because they left this church and went to Evangelical or Reformed churches.

39 posted on 03/14/2010 10:42:05 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; RnMomof7; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; the_conscience; Gamecock; Quix; onedoug
Take a step back and see if it's prudent for any man to refer to himself in any way as "another Christ."

Here's a RC caucus thread written by a priest about the priesthood...

THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD
by Father Kenneth Baker

"...Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with—both in his official ministry and in his personal life..."

Can you imagine how frightened and cowered a child would be when confronted by the unholy demands of a man whom the child is told is literally "another Christ" in "his official ministry and in his personal life?"

40 posted on 03/14/2010 10:43:06 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Amen. As many as the Lord called out.

God willing, more every day.


41 posted on 03/14/2010 10:44:20 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Which explains the hundreds of millions of dollars shelled out by the Roman Catholic church to the victims of abuse.

It's not hundreds of millions - it's actually 2.6 billion.

That's an average of about $400,000 per case for approcimately 6700 cases spanning the timeframe of 1950-2002.

Only a plurality of those cases were ever positively substantiated - most of the settlements came in the usual American fashion of a plaintiff's attorney putting together a class action suit, combining several convincing and verifiable claims with a larger class of claims varying in substance and believability.

The fact remains that a sizeable number of Catholic priests preyed upon several thousand young people - including almost 500 pre-teens - over this 52 year period.

These crimes were committed against a total population of approximately 120 million American Catholics over two generations.

This means that approximately one-twentieth of one percent of Roman Catholics were directly violated by these criminals.

Therefore my view that the media portrayal - which implies that every other Catholic child has been molested and that every other Catholic priest is a child molester - is a false and slanderous portrayal.

42 posted on 03/14/2010 10:53:01 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
You are free to submit editorial changes to Wikipedia if you feel they are in error. But it can't be denied that the Pope was responsible for writing the Crimen Sollicitationis, which states in paragraph 4 to transfer sex offenders to another office and in paragraph 11 to keep it secret. Paragraph 13 tells of how everyone is to cover this whole affair up. This document shows that it is beyond the rights of the confessional.
43 posted on 03/14/2010 10:57:49 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for the kind words, DE.

As you know, we've had very polite by pointed theological debates in the past.

As to your specific points:

(1) That the priesthood attracts pedophiles and homosexuals. Any profession that holds out the opportunity of spending time with children while being placed in a position of authority or supervision over them will attract pedophiles. The ongoing situation in America's public schools is an excellent case in point.

Plenty of clergy in other Christian denominations have been arrested for similar crimes for the same reasons.

One could argue that homosexuals might gravitate to the priesthood because it is a good "cover" for a man who, if a layman, would be obviously a "confirmed bachelor." That's less of an issue lately, since the shame and scandal of public homosexuality no longer exists in our society.

(2) You say that the problem "continues unabated." To the contrary, since the CDF took over the role of investigating these claims, the number of new accusations has declined dramatically. Several hundred priests in that timeframe have been dismissed from the ministry and every diocese in America has adopted new policies and safeguards. Even before 2001, the majority of allegations involved incidents occurring during the period of 1965-1980 - a time when the Church was in great disarray.

(3) You continue to imply that the CDF was in charge of investigating these crimes during the period of 1981-2001, which is simply not the case.

(4) You reiterate the claim that the instruction on Crimen Sollicitationis was intended to punish those who went to secular authorities regarding crimes. That is simply not the case. The claim about such informers being subject to excommunication is simply out of order - the instruction says absolutely nothing of the kind.

(5) The doctrine regarding the nature of ministry isn't really material. The idea that Father Bill McGowan is able to offer the Eucharist and hear confessions and solemnize marriages not because Bill McGowan is so great but because he is simply an instrument Christ uses to exercise His earthly ministry isn't really a factor.

The issue is that anyone who holds an office of ecclesiastical authority - be he a Catholic priest or a Presbyterian elder or an Anglican parson or a Baptist pastor - can potentially misuse his authority.

Both Reformed Christians and Catholic Christians agree that their pastors are instruments used by the Lord and that as persons they have no special merit in themselves. Where Reformed and Catholics differ is in (1) the nature of the duties they perform: Catholics believe that Baptism is truly regenerative and that the Eucharist is truly transubstantiated and (2) the duration of their obligations: Catholics believe that priests are forever marked by their ordination.

(6) You claim that Benedict XVI was "personally at the center" of the latest news story. He wasn't. First, clearly the perpetrator was the person at the center. Second, the individual who enabled the perpetrator - Msgr. Gerhard Gruber - already came forward and admitted that he facilitated the reassignment of the perpetrator in question.

44 posted on 03/14/2010 11:24:53 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
But it can't be denied that the Pope was responsible for writing the Crimen Sollicitationis, which states in paragraph 4 to transfer sex offenders to another office and in paragraph 11 to keep it secret. Paragraph 13 tells of how everyone is to cover this whole affair up.

Um, Harley-D, your link clearly demonstrates that the original letter Crimen Sollicitationis was issued by the CDF in 1962, 19 years before Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the CDF.

He wrote the 2001 instruction on Crimen Sollicitationis - in which he pointed out that various aspects of that 1962 letter were null and void because they contradicted the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983. The message of his instruction on the letter was that prelates could not use the pretext of hiding behind a liberal interpretation of a 1962 letter that, in 2001, had already been obsolete for 18 years.

45 posted on 03/14/2010 11:32:19 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Amen. As many as the Lord called out.

My FIL was EO. My MIL was RC. The children were raised in the RCC. My FIL said to his dying day the cover up was as bad as the crimes, that they should have thrown the doors open and prosecuted the criminals instead of protecting them.

Of course what did he know about law enforcement and doing the right thing, he was only the commissioner of the state police at one time in his career. Thanks be to God, he came to live with us before he died and heard The Gospel preached every Sunday he came to church with us. He became a Born Again Christian prior to his death.

I don't think his story is unique. A lot of people became open to going to other churches when they saw how little regard the RCC had for their children in handling this criminality.

46 posted on 03/14/2010 11:35:52 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; HarleyD; Gamecock; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; ...
Crimen Sollicitationis...The claim about such informers being subject to excommunication is simply out of order - the instruction says absolutely nothing of the kind.

Here is a copy of the actual letter sent out in 1962. Note paragraph 11 which specifically lays out the punishment of excommunication for anyone speaking about these accusations/crimes.

CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS

In quickly glancing over this document I also noticed PARAGRAPH 42a which says that if the council deems the alleged victim's accusations to be without merit, then all the "documents of the accusations should be destroyed."

We can only guess the size of the Vatican shredder.

47 posted on 03/14/2010 11:57:45 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
My FIL said to his dying day the cover up was as bad as the crimes, that they should have thrown the doors open and prosecuted the criminals instead of protecting them.

How can any parent, any Christian, any human being, think anything less? And yet so many RCs remain silent.

If these crimes were simply homosexual in nature, they would be bad enough. But they are crimes against children, and those crimes destroy those children. What parent in their right mind would send their child to a parochial school run by "celibate" men and women who purposely deprive themselves of God's gift of a family and children?

When we look around and see so many homosexuals these days it is no coincidence that when asked many many of them say they were raised Roman Catholic. Until that protected abuse ends, we can expect more of the same.

Of course what did he know about law enforcement and doing the right thing, he was only the commissioner of the state police at one time in his career. Thanks be to God, he came to live with us before he died and heard The Gospel preached every Sunday he came to church with us. He became a Born Again Christian prior to his death.

I don't think his story is unique. A lot of people became open to going to other churches when they saw how little regard the RCC had for their children in handling this criminality.

AMEN!

48 posted on 03/14/2010 12:03:59 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; the_conscience; Quix; onedoug
Um, Harley-D, your link clearly demonstrates that the original letter Crimen Sollicitationis was issued by the CDF in 1962, 19 years before Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the CDF.

Hmmmm....so it was. I'm a bit surprised. How many Crimen Sollicitationis are floating around? I'll have to do a bit more research.

But, that does raise the issue as to who wrote this one and it doesn't change the facts that documented in the 1962 Crimen Sollicitationis the position of the Roman Catholic Church was obviscate, move people, and hide the facts. The Pope being head of the CDF later had to know what edicts had been written. And yet during this time he did nothing to change this policy? To me it cast the Pope in a worst light-not better. Of course, I'll have to track down his Crimen Sollicitationis.

49 posted on 03/14/2010 12:23:46 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; wideawake; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Dutchboy88; ...
Thanks to all for your pings. This is an interesting story.

wideawake: I appreciate your responses as you seem to be given an even-handed account of the situation. I have to plead ignorant on the practical functioning of the Romanist Church so I appreciate your description. Along those lines is where I think it get's interesting and the thing that concerns me is this paragraph:

Hours later, the Munich archdiocese admitted that it had allowed a priest suspected of having abused a child to return to pastoral work in the 1980s, while Benedict was archbishop. It stressed that the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger didn’t know about the transfer and that it had been decided by a lower-ranking official.

What bothers me is how an ArchBishop could be left uninformed of a pedophile in his diceose, or whatever the jurisdictional name is? What do these Archbishops do? I'm sure there is a ton of politics involved at that level yet I'm still dismayed that that serious of offense could be handled by subordinates. Is there a reasonable explanation for this?

50 posted on 03/14/2010 12:53:41 PM PDT by the_conscience (We ought to obey God, rather than men. (Acts 5:29b))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson