Amid Church Abuse Scandal, an Office That Failed to Act (Ratzinger)

NYT ^ | July 1, 2010 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

[TSgt]

In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.

The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.

But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.

[TSgt]

Interesting analysis of how the Vatican's bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law resulted in the church's poor response to the global sex abuse scandal.

I encourage my Catholic FReeper friends to read the article, I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.

It appears the universal church is far from having a universal response to the problem. Couple that with the Pope's inability or unwillingness to remove Bishops/Cardinals and it becomes obvious that nothing has changed decades.

[TSgt]

Interesting read regarding Ratzinger and Vatican bureaucracy which impeded the handling of sex abuse cases.

[D-fendr]

This will not be an “even handed” thread.

[vladimir998]

Why is there no barf alert on this article?

[circlecity]

It must be July already as I see the Times’ monthly Catholic bashing article has arrived.

[D-fendr]

The first two posts on your thread are an odd juxtaposition.

Janus comes to mind.

[Quix]

Hmmmmmmm . . .

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sigh.

[Houghton M.]

It’s as evenhanded as the Devil’s haircut. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out, it ends with innuendo because that’s all the NYSlimes has: innunendo.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/hells-bible-spits-more-goo-in-pope-benedicts-direction/

It’s aimed at bringing down Benedict. It has NOTHING to do with concern over sex abuse.

Freepers don’t post NYSlimes stuff and call it evenhanded when it has to do with other topics.

Because NYSlimes stuff is seldom evenhanded.

Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.”

You don’t have a clue.

[TSgt]

Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.” You don’t have a clue.

Let's please discuss the merits of the article and not make it personal.

[TSgt]

Did you read the article?

Do you not agree that the Vatican’s bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law caused delays when it came to the handling of abuse cases?

[Houghton M.]

Uh, wot I said: The merits of the article do not exist. It’s filled with innuendo. It makes no argument.

It’s not evenhanded.

Get that.

YOU are wrong to say that the article’s merits are its evenhandedness.

It’s not evenhanded.

Innuendo is not evenhanded.

Is that sufficiently merit-based for you?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Did you read the article?”

Only part of it. It didn’t seem necessary to read more.

“Do you not agree that the Vatican’s bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law caused delays when it came to the handling of abuse cases?”

Nope - because there is no such thing as cannon law. I suggest you learn how to spell “canon” before you make statements or ask questions about it.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Let’s please discuss the merits of the article and not make it personal.”

Anti-Catholic hatred on the part of people who are obessed with posting articles bashing the Church or pope over decades old child abuse cases (or even more recent ones) tends to make it personal. People like that clearly have a personal agenda so what do you expect?

[darkangel82]

Anything from the Times is bound to be communist compost.

[TSgt]

The article contains facts such as dates, meetings and statements.

Specifically:
The Vatican took action only after bishops from English-speaking nations became so concerned about resistance from top church officials that the Vatican convened a secret meeting in 2000 to hear their complaints. At this meeting, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, then the head of the Congregation for the Clergy, set the tone, playing down sexual abuse as an unavoidable fact of life, and complaining that lawyers and the media were unfairly focused on it, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. What is more, he asked, is it not contradictory for people to be so outraged by sexual abuse when society also promotes sexual liberation?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, but for the two decades Ratzinger was in charge of that office her never asserted that authority.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome.

Besides Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bishops were sending off their files on abuse cases to the Congregations for the Clergy, for Bishops, for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and for the Evangelization of Peoples — plus the Vatican’s Secretariat of State; its appeals court, the Apostolic Signatura; and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Cardinal Ratzinger eliminated national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it in their countries. He declared that such conferences had “no theological basis” and “do not belong to the structure of the church.” Individual bishops, he reaffirmed, reigned supreme in their dioceses and reported only to the authority of the pope in Rome.

John Paul rejected its proposal to let bishops dismiss priests using administrative procedures, without canonical trials.

In May 2001, John Paul issued a confidential apostolic letter instructing that all cases of sexual abuse by priests were thenceforth to be handled by Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. The letter was called “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela,” Latin for “Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments.” In an accompanying cover letter, Cardinal Ratzinger, who is said to have been heavily involved in drafting the main document, wrote that the 1922 and 1962 instructions that gave his office authority over sexual abuse by priests cases were “in force until now.”

This sums it up:
Nicholas P. Cafardi, a Catholic expert in canon law who is dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law, said, “When it came to handling child sexual abuse by priests, our legal system fell apart. When you think how much pain could’ve been prevented, if we only had a clear understanding of our own law,” he said. “It really is a terrible irony. This did not have to happen.”

[TSgt]

Nope - because there is no such thing as cannon law. I suggest you learn how to spell “canon” before you make statements or ask questions about it.

Are you able to discuss the article without making personal attacks? See post 15 and tell me if what, if any, is incorrect.

[Desdemona]

It’s from the New York Times. No even-handedness. And I didn’t even bother to read it.

[TSgt]

Anti-Catholic hatred on the part of people who are obessed with posting articles bashing the Church or pope over decades old child abuse cases (or even more recent ones) tends to make it personal. People like that clearly have a personal agenda so what do you expect?

Again, please see post 15 and tell me what is not factual. Do you disagree with Nicholas P. Cafardi?

[TSgt]

Did you read the article and can you tell me where it is factually incorrect?

[TSgt]

It’s from the New York Times. No even-handedness. And I didn’t even bother to read it.

Please see the summarized facts in post 15 and tell me what is untrue.