Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[pgwenthold]

From the Irish report:

The Commission examined complaints in respect of approximately 320 complainants against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Of the complaints examined by the Commission,

* three were made in the 1960s;
* 11 were made in the 1970s and there were two suspicions/concerns;
* 64 were made in the 1980s and there were 24 suspicions/concerns;
* 135 were made in the 1990s and there were 23 suspicions/concerns;
* 112 were made in the 2000s (mainly between January 2000 and 1 May 2004) and there were 10 suspicions/concerns.


Some context for those figures:

Point of clarification: do "complaints" refer to when the activity happened? Or when complaints were made, which is presumably sometime after the activity happened.

 

[Darat]

Thank you. If you match those figures to the case Ratzinger commented on, which was percolating in late 70's early 80's, it is hard not to see the organization as stuck in a "it couldn't happen here" attitude in any diocese where a scandal/charge had not yet been uncovered or made.

...snip...

But when you read the report you learn that the organisation was well aware of what was happening all along and I find it hard to believe that somehow Dublin is unique in what was going on and what was known to be going on, so it should have sent warning bells ringing in many other places. (The Irish report only looked into allegations in one of the 26 RC dioceses there are in Ireland - so those figures represent a sample of a sample. )

And indeed we know that warning bells were ringing in the church because:

The Bishops’ Conference
3.39 On the island of Ireland, there are 26 Roman Catholic dioceses and 33 bishops, including seven auxiliary bishops. These bishops meet as the Irish Bishops‟ Conference (sometimes called the Episcopal Conference) four times a year. While all of the bishops who formed part of the Conference had taken out insurance between 1987 and 1990 to protect them against claims that could result from clerical child sexual abuse, it was not until 1994 that they established a committee to advise on the appropriate responses to an accusation, suspicion or knowledge of a priest or religious having sexually abused a child.
3.40 It took that committee until 1996 to produce the document entitled Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (generally described as the Framework Document in this report). This document was endorsed by the Irish Bishops‟ Conference and by the Conference of Major Religious Superiors12 that year. In effect, it became the first written policy which the Dublin Archdiocese had on the handling of complaints of clerical sexual abuse of children.

So they knew there was a potential serious threat to the Church's financial assets and seemingly quickly implemented an insurance scheme to cover that but as to dealing with what was happening with the victims? Well you can read above it took another ten years after the insurance was in place.

I cannot stress how time after time in the report all you see is the Chruch being concerned about the church organisation itself, its reputation, its financial assets and the reputations of its priests, you see nothing until the 2000s that showed any concern for the welfare of the children that were being abused and had been abused.

Just to re-enforce that:

1.20 In 1981, Archbishop Ryan showed a clear understanding of both the recidivist nature of child sexual abusers and the effects of such abuse on children when he was referring Fr to Stroud (a therapeutic facility in the UK – see Chapter 11). The Archdiocese first made inquiries about insurance cover for compensation claims in the mid 1980s and such cover was put in place in 1987 (see Chapter 9).

...snip...

So even with some data points in the 1980's from elsewhere, the incidence, if the numbers show cases of abuse, increased rather than decreased, which shows that whatever management controls were in place (if any) were ineffective. Did the organization then put effective management controls into place to reduce undesired behavior? (Aside: Your point on the explicit condemnation in canon law shows that some form of address to the problem was made, of questionable effectiveness.)

...snip...

I think those increases are probably accounted for by the age of the victims rather than any significant increase in the abuse itself.

But no there was no controls put in place, beyond "move him", the report reveals a state of affairs that is beyond shameful. Quite seriously I alternated between anger and tears when I first read the report. The scale of the abuse that the RC church has managed to hide for (we can only presume) decades and decades is something that if posted in a conspiracy theory you would claim was too fantastic to be true.

...snip...

Those numbers tell us that for the case of Ireland, and possibly elsewhere, effective organizational change was not made.

Leadership/management failure, plain and simple. The deduction I make is that it was pretended to be less serious than in was, or the organization never got from "we have a problem" mode to "problem solving" mode. It was instead wished away.

Deming wept.

Or maybe ... this is why Jesus wept.

...snip...

The issue is not that they didn't move to a problem solving mode - it is that as far as the organisation was concerned the problem was the harm it would do the reputation and financial assets of the church if this was known. And as terrible as it might be to say it they were for a long time successful at solving the problem that they saw.

...snip...

Darat, this discussion has made me think something else through:

I disagree with then Cardinal Ratzinger's point, thanks to Alferd's posts, about how important this "once a priest always a priest" bit plays out.

The Roman Catholic Church puts great store in the apostolic tradition and lineage back to Peter, quoting time and again from Matthew 16:19:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

With the power to loose and to bind, the RCC can indeed revoke the impact of a priest's vows, and he can be, by legitimate authority vested in the Holy See, via RCC "We got this from Peter and the keys" dogma, rendered a non-priest.

They can annul a marriage, they can annul a holy order. Both are sacraments.

I appreciate Alferd's explanation of why Benedict made the appeal to the bishop in CA, you can't just flush your problem away. I disagree with the reasoning that the Church should not render void, or loose, the previous decision to ordain the man. By their own dogma, they have the authority.

...snip...

DR

There is large section in the report that covers canon law and it becomes very apparent that it was largely either ignored or not understood (and remember many of the people involved in the cover-up were not only Bishops and Cardinals in the church they were also qualified barristers, professors and so on - they were considered very well educated and intelligent people).

 

[Aquila]

Then why aren't Buddhist clerics the problem, if you are going to generalize this whole problem to "organized religion" in this case. I don't think it fair to pillory Mormons, Buddhists, Methodists, or Muslims for the problems of a discrete religious sect: the RCC. If you astrology shows that, perhaps you'll reconsider using it as an analysis tool.

These religions might not have had the specific problem of pedophiles, like the RCC, but sexuality certainly was a hot topic in all of them at the times cited, with the degree of controversy and revelation still corresponding to the astrological transits. The biggest controversy in the West, anyway, has been homosexuality, followed by the treatment of women, in or out of the church/mosque. In Islam, the abuse has been more towards women (enforced ritual female genital disfigurement, enforced wearing of the burka). And lest we think that Buddhism is immune from controversy, the Dalai Lama has spoken out against homosexuality.

Although Pluto, ruling the sign Scorpio, has a lot to do with sex, it is also the planet of power, control and secrecy. Semi-occult religions like Mormonism are very power-structured, with people being initiated into certain aspects of the teachings under strict vows of secrecy. All this began to be exposed during the last decade or so.

ETA: Abortion and euthanazia (Dr. Jack Gevorkain for example) were also Plutonian/Scorpio/"life and death"/reproduction topics which were came into the public's consciousness in during the times cited.

 

[Darat]

Point of clarification: do "complaints" refer to when the activity happened? Or when complaints were made, which is presumably sometime after the activity happened.

My understanding is that it was when the complaints were made.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But when you read the report you learn that the organisation was well aware of what was happening all along

yes, I ETA'd Father Fitzgerald's internal protest. The ostrich response was the chosen strategy.

I cannot stress how time after time in the report all you see is the Chruch being concerned about the church organisation itself, its reputation, its financial assets and the reputations of its priests, you see nothing until the 2000s that showed any concern for the welfare of the children that were being abused and had been abused.

Maybe they are all a bunch of retired fighter pilots, and believe that it is better to die, crashing in flames, than to look bad.

Quite seriously I alternated between anger and tears when I first read the report.

So Darat has a heart. You heard it here first, folks.

My revulsion was rather strong when the US chapter of this mess was being played out about ten years ago. As I noted previously, I forbade my son from being enrolled in certain church activities. Me being married to a Catholic, that caused no small stress in our home, and in my marriage. I am pretty sure that, absent falling in love with a nice Catholic girl, he'll not be a practicing Catholic for very long after he leaves high school. That bothers his mother, but me not so much.

The issue is not that they didn't move to a problem solving mode - it is that as far as the organisation was concerned the problem was the harm it would do the reputation and financial assets of the church if this was known.

Good point. They didn't read their own book (Luke 17:2). As you said, shameful. The answer was right in front of them, the whole time.

The question is, given that the organization can be effectively punished via the civil suits, how does one go about getting the kind of information one needs to charge and punish a given individual among the clerics? Each case, in criminal matters, tends to be judged on the merits of the evidence provided.

If Pope Benedict, when he was a priest or Bishop, was materially involved in such a cover up of an abuse case, and there is evidence to support the charges, I agree with marksman on this: let the charges against him be filed, and let the Germans jail him. All they have to work out is how to get him to face the charges, if that's the case.

Here's a thought: is the Vatican about to declare itself "under seige" as it was between 1870 and 1929, when the Lateran Treaty was signed?

For the Pope: have you considered "what would Jesus do" in this case? Jesus might have taken the sins upon himself, and offered himself up as sacrifice. You don't have to take the sins of the whole world upon yourself, just that of your fellow clerics. Should be a breeze. They don't use crosses and nails anymore.

Is Pope Benedict strong enough in his faith to do that? Maybe he ought to watch Clint Eastwood's latest film, Grand Torino, and ponder on "out of the box" thinking.

DR

 

[LashL]

Moved a few off-topic posts to AAH.

Posted By: LashL

 

[iknownothing]

The issue is not that they didn't move to a problem solving mode - it is that as far as the organisation was concerned the problem was the harm it would do the reputation and financial assets of the church if this was known. And as terrible as it might be to say it they were for a long time successful at solving the problem that they saw.

Exactly!

 

[Rrose Selavy]

The Holy See’s second-highest prelate after the Pope has blamed homosexuals for the paedophile crisis.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, said that the child rape scandal that is threatening the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide is linked to homosexuality and not celibacy among priests.
Other Vatican clerics have sought to deflect criticism from the Catholic hierarchy by blaming the media, and one retired bishop was even reported earlier this week to have blamed the Jews.
Cardinal Bertone made the comments during a news conference on Monday in Chile, where one of the church’s highest-profile paedophile cases involves a priest having sex with young girls

Chile’s gay rights advocates reacted with anger. “Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality,” said Rolando Jiménez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile.
Mr Jimenez also said that no reputable study existed to support the cardinal’s claims. “This is a perverse strategy by the Vatican to shirk its own ethical and legal responsibility by making a spurious and disgusting connection,” he said.
At least one of the paedophile priests in the Chilean Church victimised young girls, including a teenager who became pregnant.
At the time the archbishop of the capital, Santiago, received multiple complaints about Father José Andrés Aguirre. However, the priest — known to his parishioners as Father Tato — continued serving at a number of Catholic girls schools in the city.
Later the Church sent Aguirre out of Chile twice amid abuse allegations. He was eventually sentenced to 12 years in prison for abusing 10 teenage girls.

Now this is the killer....you couldn't make it up...

The age of consent in the Vatican is 12.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.ece

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now this is the killer....you couldn't make it up...

Not really much of a surprise. While I question the wisdom of that decision, based on my own cultural baseline (AMerican) it is consistent with the facts of biology, and the RCC being a medieval organization that has a hard time catching up with the times.

That age of consent isn't all that low, unless you compare it to the last couple of centuries of societal change in The West -- not the entire world.

As I understand it, from the few articles I have read on the topic, the average age of fertility has actually declined in the West, due to diet or something, but it may be that whomever is reporting on this is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. (Was not trying to make a pun there).

Our conventions change, the Vatican's obviously a lot more slowly.

DR

 

[pgwenthold]

Why is there an "age of consent" for sex with a priest? I thought it was non-existent, because priests can't have sex? Shouldn't that mean that priests are not allowed to consent to sex?

 

[Toke]

Why is there an "age of consent" for sex with a priest? I thought it was non-existent, because priests can't have sex? Shouldn't that mean that priests are not allowed to consent to sex?

You seem to confuse law and internal church regulation.

Age of consent is more or less irrelevant if a child is placed in your care, as in scout leader, priest or schoolteacher.

 

[Roadtoad]

I will admit to having overstated the case, after reading and re-reading some posts here and on another thread. But what I will not back down on is that there were those who knew what was going on and did nothing. It was not for the good of the Church; it was to try and avoid facing the reality that certain deviants were abusing children. To have done little of nothing when someone had the ability to bring this to a stop, simply because it wasn't convenient was unconscionable.

As to 154's posts: Who gives a rat's ass if the pedophile was gay or straight? I agree with earlier posters: What is your point? Did it occur to you that due to our rather weird attitude regarding sexuality in Western society, a young boy is simply not going to report a male authority figure because he doesn't want to get labeled by his peers? It has less to do with sexuality, and far more to do with avoiding prosecution.

Perhaps if we quit demonizing people's sexuality, this would no longer happen. The creeps would be reported, regardless of who was being abused.

 

[154]

Did it occur to you that due to our rather weird attitude regarding sexuality in Western society,

Are we not yet pornographic enough? Must we be Sodom and Gomorrah to not be weird for you?

a young boy is simply not going to report a male authority figure because he doesn't want to get labeled by his peers?

How perfectly convenient for the predators... and then covered by their peers... in the name of God.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are we not yet pornographic enough? Must we be Sodom and Gomorrah to not be weird for you?

Being gay is still something many people choose to keep secret. That's because there is still plenty of bigotry against homosexuals. (Some other posters have already argued that your posts are a case in point).

This is particularly true for young people, especially those in conservative religious communities whose parents and friends are likely to ostracise them or worse if they come out of the closet.

Society on average may be more accepting of pornography than it once was, but that hasn't magically dissolved anti-homosexual prejudice in religious communities.

 

[Simon39759]

What's the relationship between tolerance toward homosexuality and pornography?

154 seems to translate homosexuality as "sexual pervert", homosexuals = child molesters; homosexual = porn addicts...
It's silly and bigoted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is there an "age of consent" for sex with a priest? I thought it was non-existent, because priests can't have sex? Shouldn't that mean that priests are not allowed to consent to sex?

Well played.

 

[Xephyr]

Why is anyone surprised that a corporation's highly paid executives would naturally protect it in order to maintain the company's ongoing business and profitability ?!

 

[Robin]

I don't see how they can weasel out of this one.

Like this.

Step 1. a couple of prominent atheists try to get the Pontiff arrested.

Step 2. A bunch of conservative pundits in the media use this to drum up sympathy for the Pontiff, painting this as victimisation of the Pope and an attempt to silence a major force for morality in society in order to further their agenda to break down the protective taboos of society and overturn morality (I can provide examples if you like).

Step 3. Same pundits find a single error in some of the reports - and play mercilessly on this to try to make the accusations sound baseless.

Step 4. Back to business as usual.

 

[Simon39759]

Hum; I disagree with Step 1.
Dawkins and Hitchens actual involvement is much lesser than the media reported it.

Ok; maybe adding a Step.

Step 1: A small movement of skeptics and atheists try to get the Pontiff arrested.
Steb 1b: The support of a couple of prominent atheists for this movement is picked up and blown out of proportion by sensationalist media in a way that completely obscure the actual issue.

(and then, I agree with the rest of your post).

 

[154]

What's the relationship between tolerance toward homosexuality and pornography?

I didn't mean tittypics. Stop straining at gnats and thinking you caught an elephant. I meant our culture.

154 seems to translate homosexuality as "sexual pervert", homosexuals = child molesters; homosexual = porn addicts...
It's silly and bigoted.

Why do you seem to need to deliberately and repeatedly misportray my words?
You may have noticed. I'm pretty direct and concise, and even offensive to some..
there's no need to guess for seeming translations, as you know.