Ratzinger dealt with the case himself
Oh gee surprise surprise what do you know –
Germany’s Catholic Church systematically covered up cases of sexual abuse within its own ranks for several decades, according to an expert study commissioned by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising.
Total cognitive dissonance. Religion makes people good, and it especially makes them compassionate. Any fule kno this, so it must be true. But if people are compassionate…they don’t conceal cases of sexual violence against children, do they. Compassionate people are motivated to do other things, such as making sure no more children will be the objects of sexual violence. Compassionate people are concerned with the suffering of other people as opposed to themselves – their first impulse is to protect victims as opposed to victimizers. Their first and main concern is not to protect themselves and/or their colleagues from exposure and prosecution at the expense of the current victims and the future victims.
“Only 26 priests were convicted for sexual offences,” Westpfahl explained to reporters, saying she found 365 files containing evidence that “acts of abuse had taken place in an almost commonplace manner.”
…
The incriminating evidence Westpfahl found among 13,200 available files implicated 159 priests, 15 deacons, 96 religion teachers and six pastoral employees, with rural areas particularly affected.
The victims’ suffering often remained a mystery, she said, as the reports usually discussed abuse in coy euphemisms.
All those priests and deacons and religious teachers turn out to have been like everyone else, only more so – selfish, self-protecting, greedy, and ruthless. They turn out to have used children as if they were inflatable dolls, and to have lied a blue streak to protect their jobs and their continued ability to rape children. What do you know.
Westpfahl also said that the period of 1977 to 1982, when Pope Benedikt XVI – then Archbishop Josef Ratzinger – headed up the archdiocese, was particularly poorly documented.
In this timeframe, she only found one document, regarding an abuse case. Ratzinger had dealt with the case himself, ordering that an abusive priest be removed from his parish, she said.
The article doesn’t spell it out, but that sounds as if Ratzinger presided over copious destruction of incriminating documents.
And he keeps lecturing us on morality. Must be more than a pair he’s got.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by athinkingman, Skeptic South Africa and Jessica Anderson, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Ratzinger dealt with the case himself http://dlvr.it/9nKwp […]
Off topic but Ophelia, your name has been mentioned here and you might, perhaps, want to comment.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/05/congrats-to-new-agu-board-member-chris-mooney/
Duh. They’re not victimizers. They’re victims of temptation (by those naughty, naughty boys). It makes perfect sense that the RCC hierarchy has compassion with the molesters – “there but for the grace of god go I”.
Thanks Sigmund. Mentioned and mentioned and mentioned.
If I comment, Mooney will probably do a new post saying he banned me because I threatened to roast babies for lunch! :- )
My guess is that Ratzinger did not preside over the destruction of the evidence. Churches are like armies. They keep records from the year dot. But they’re like armies in another way. They protect their senior officers. What probably happened is that, when the child abuse scandal started heating up, some helpful people at the offices of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising began shredding files, lest anything be in them that could stick to the Holy Father. Churches are like armies in another way, though it’s probably true that armies have more of this particular commodity than churches: they’re not particularly compassionate.
<i> I threatened to roast babies for lunch!</i>
Baby what? Squab? Veal?
Ophelia … congratuations … a fine ‘rant’,
except it wasn’t a rant, it was a clear and logical impaling of the indefensible position(s) of that evil and corrupt organisation otherwise known as the RCC.
I particularly liked this incisive clause:
“Compassionate people are concerned with the suffering of other people as opposed to themselves – their first impulse is to protect victims as opposed to victimizers.”
… and I promise to unrepentingly plagiarise this for a long time :-))
That’s not a threat. That’s a friendly invitation!
Thenk you Colin!
Why is it that the first thing I heard in my head upon reading the title of this article was Darth Vader’s voice saying, “Leave that to me”?
I’m consistently disturbed at the level of apparent indifference towards the actions of the Catholic Church around the world among the general populace as well as those in power. If any other organization were culpable in what the Vatican and its subsidiaries have done, well, you might at least see a Congressman make a serious effort at legally challenging its tax-exempt status or something.
Special rules for religions doncha know.
I vaguely remember reading in my history books about the great controversy in the C15 whereby the Pope insisted that the sacraments officiated by priests who had themselves sinned was still holy, despite what lay people might believe. The Pope’s insistence took the form of excommunicating the people who did not agree with this doctrine, leaving it to the civil authorities to deal with the excommunicated person. This usually took the form of burning, although tearing the flesh off the sinner’s body with red hot irons was also practiced.
Is this idea still current in the Catholic Church?
I don’t understand the point of this, apart from it being a gratuitous drive-by slander. The article clearly states that The Church was completely cooperative and did absolutely nothing to impede the investigation.
Furthermore ( and I’m quite familiar with this issue) the study covers a time span of nearly 65 years, from 1945 to 2009, but according to many studies already conducted in America, the cases of abuse dropped off rapidly after 1980.
In a parish I once attended a former ‘priest’ is on trial for abusing 14 and 15 year-old boys. But during the procedings it was revealed that while the abuse was happening he was also involved in a long term gay relationship with a married man ( for nearly 20 years).
Given that portrait of the guy, what does The Church or the fact he had worked as a priest, have to do with any of this? When a teacher, for example, is accused of sexual abuse of minors, do we invoke the teaching proffession as somehow having a critical bearing on the motivation leading to the abuse?
A teacher accused of sexual realtions with a minor is never referred to as an abusive teacher, they are merely labelled with the generic “peadophile”, and they are labelled as such because it is understood that their carreer had no motivating influence on the abuse.
If you do more detailed investigations into the backgrounds of the priests charged with abuse, you’ll often find that many were just openly pracitising homosexual men who sometimes had sex with teenage boys as a kind of sideline…like the guy in my childhood parrish.
But the things is, though, it is socially acceptable to associate priests, religion, Roman Catholicism etc with pedophilia, but it is thoroughly bigoted and homophobic, on the other hand, to associate that same pedophilia with ordinary homosexual males.
Back in the 90s they were numerous scandals in America concerning sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts. However, no one in the media attempted to even intimate that there was a causal link between between being a scout leader and becoming a pedophile. Nor were their any attempts to draw causal links between their profession and the abuse because the abusers came from a myriad of backgrounds.
This whole issue has almost nothing to do with The Church or Roman Catholics, and a lot to do with homosexual men with a taste for underage teens.
Sauder, please read the post again. The point is not that people do bad things but the fact that bad things have been covered up by an organisation that has been telling us since the days of Constantine that it stands for morality and truth. One would have thought it more in the interest of the Roman Catholic Church to come straight out with this and show openly that crimes of abuse by its serving members are not acceptable and that abusers will be dismissed. However, this doesn’t appear to be the way they think.
Is this the best that this bastion of moral absolutism can do ?
Not impede the investigation ?
When the church stops moving child raping priests from parish to parish, releases all information it has on past cases to secular authorities, immediately turns over all information it has on new cases to secular authorities and stops sheltering known paedophiles and abettors in the vatican then we can compare the rcc to boy scouts and teachers.
And your assertion that it is the gays that are raping children is absolute bullshit and you know it.
Interesting fact, did you know that the incidence of AIDs related deaths is 4 times higher in rcc priests than the general population and of these 75% report as heterosexual (http://www.actupny.org/YELL/catholicpriests.html).
“The point is not that people do bad things but the fact that bad things have been covered up by an organisation that has been telling us since the days of Constantine that it stands for morality and truth.”
Yes The Church could certainly be accused of hypocrisy on this, but is that hypocrisy any more widespread or intense than that displayed by any other “do-gooder” organisation these days?
If The Church could be accused of covering anything up, it would be the sexual tastes of CERTAIN homosexuals that are to found within its ranks. Yes, The Church, the homophobic institution par excellence, has gerrymandered things in order to protect homosexuals from exposure and prosecution.
Peter Tatchel has proposed lowering the age of consent to just 15 ( if not 14)…about the same age range as the Catholic abuse victims…and yet during the Pope’s last visit he demonstrated against Benedict.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not championing The Church. I’m just pointing out what I find to be very selective indignation indeed.
And as for reading the article, I have. Thing is, it’s always the same article over and over again.
I’ve come to the conclusion that many articles of this nature are now just a form of procrastination, a comfortable bromide, a convenient diversion providing an escape from new, emerging religious realities that are far, far greater more problematic and intractable.
Perhaps that’s because the rcc keeps committing the same crimes over and over again.
“Interesting fact, did you know that the incidence of AIDs related deaths is 4 times higher in rcc priests than the general population and of these 75% report as heterosexual (http://www.actupny.org/YELL/catholicpriests.html).”
You’re no doubt right. Back in the 80 when I worked for an AIDS org. ( volunteer) we were always careful to specify that AIDS wasn’t a “gay plague”, and that in places like Africa and Haiti it was most widespread among heteros.
No doubt that AIDS rates are much higher among very promiscuous homosexuals then those more prone to celibacy, but such selective targeting would be denounced as bigotry and homophobia.
You realise, of course, that The Catholic Church teaches that celibacy among its clergy is de rigeur. The fact that SOME homosexual priests disregard that teaching and end up HIV positive changes nothing of that teaching’s validity.
Do you not realise that by citing that study and providing the appropriate link, you’re actually validating that teaching?
You’re also just a hair’s breadth from accusing sexually active gay men of being typhoid marys.
You feel comfortable, not to mention righteous, engaging in gross generalisations and unfair stereotyping of a whole group of people simply because you chose to employ the term “priest” instead of homosexual.
Sleight of hand homophobia?
The only thing being validated is your propensity to ignore the facts and distort the truth. A typical catlick indeed.
The rcc teaches that celibacy among its clergy is de rigeur, yet another of the many hypocrisies that organization indulges in, but in practice the clergy are anything but celibate.
As I like to describe it, it’s a bunch of pontificating paedophiles preaching chastity and poverty while living in castles full of stolen art treasures.
I think you’re quite right that this issue often has to do with men who want to rape children – but not at all right that it has nothing to do with the Catholic church. Being a priest is a hell of a good dodge for a man who wants to rape children: the children are abundantly available, and they are trained to revere the priest as closer to god than other mortals are; then if any of the raping becomes known, the church will conceal the crimes and protect the priest from the long arm of the law. What’s not to like?!
There was one Irish priest who was obviously like that – he all but asked a bishop if the little boys were juicy and compliant. I did a post about him awhile ago; I’ll see if I can find it. I think Marie-Therese knows him by name.
So sure – some priests are fake priests who are actually just child-rapists who’ve spotted a good thing. But that hardly exonerates the church for protecting them and concealing the problem!
Excuse me for having to say this in so blunt a manner, but you’re very badly mistaken. As a former high school teacher, I was aware that any HINT of a scandal — much less actual abuse — would lead my school district (and rightly so!) to crucify that teacher and immediately contact authorities, precisely because of the fact that a school system, in dealing with minors, MUST be entirely transparent and totally ruthless in weeding out opportunistic predators. Any school system that did the opposite (i.e., covering up incidents) would quickly have no more students once that fact came out, zoning notwithstanding — such a school system would be infamous for years thereafter. The RCC, on the other hand, apparently took the official position that because they had a monopoly on salvation, they could cover these things up with impunity.
“priest” instead of homosexual.
Father Brendan Smyth was a paedophile.
The head of the Norbertines and the Archbishop of Armagh, Sean Brady, were accused by media with reliable history, of mishandling a case, and the Norbertines of negligence and a failure to tell others of Smyth’s crimes, enabling Smyth to sexually abuse large numbers of children for 40 years.
It’s always good to bring misdeeds of all camps to the fore but I think your version of truth is a bit selective in this case. All this is ancient history. In modern history the biggest and worst mass murderer of mankind is not religion instead it’s fascism, examples: World War I and II, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Srebrenica etc. But the difference between fascism and nationalism is one of degrees and not substance. But we all accept and welcome good and bona fide nationalism. So if we can draw a distinction between good and bad aspects of nationalism then why can’t we also draw such a distinction between good and bad aspects of religion? Categorizing everything about religion as evil and mala fide would be unfair.
“As I like to describe it, it’s a bunch of pontificating paedophiles preaching chastity and poverty while living in castles full of stolen art treasures.”
Yes ALL preists are just a BUNCH of pontification paedophiles. As I stated earlier you make sweeping generalisations about catholic priests and catholics that you’d never make against any other identifiable group.
And I’d no idea the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel was looted art. So you mean it isn’t really painted directly on but is instead a crude cut ‘n paste job?
priest” instead of homosexual.
Father Brendan Smyth was a paedophile.
Thérèse, I’ve no doubt that this Brenda Smyth guy was a pedophile through and through.
However in a comment above someone provided a link purporting to show that AIDS rates in RCC priests are four times higher than average.
Now, you know as well as I how HIV is mostly transmitted between homosexual adult males. If that figure of 4Xs the normal infection rate of HIV is true for rcc priests, then aren’t these priests really just gay men in cossocks?
You’re attempting to prove that priest=’s paedophile, whereas in reality most of the priests in question are really just homosexuals. who occasionally abuse ( mostly) young teens.
They’re not repressed by their faith, nor are they frustrated and in the closet. I mean, Ive come across news reports posted at Catholic blogs talking about priests that have been nabbed for bathroom sex at interstate reststops and such.
Real peadohpilia among rcc priests are statistically quite rare, and from what I can glean the numbers, the percentages, are about the same as the overall general population.
“Being a priest is a hell of a good dodge for a man who wants to rape children: the children are abundantly available, and they are trained to revere the priest as closer to god than other mortals are; then if any of the raping becomes known, the church will conceal the crimes and protect the priest from the long arm of the law. What’s not to like?!”
You’re quite right. And I’d like to add that the car, the house, the maid and the meals are all free!
[…] stuck my nose in yesterday, because Sigmund told me my name had been mentioned, and I found that it had appeared in three separate comments, so I […]
Sauder, when you say “you,” make it clear which “you” you mean. You mix the general and the specific so you end up accusing everyone of everything. That’s no good.
http://www.independent.ie/…/chris–moore–club–protecting–monster–went–all-the– way-to-top-2100001.html
http://www.snapnetwork.org/priest…/glimpse_mind_pedophile.htm
I think you’re quite right that this issue often has to do with men who want to rape children – but not at all right that it has nothing to do with the Catholic church.
Aye, above links tell of sordid tales of sex abuse of children and even (allegedly) a baby by priests.
The church had a long history of shifting priests who sexually abused children. Nonetheless, when the church was confronted with this issue in recent years, it made out that it did not understand paedophilia.
Also to the contrary “Sex Crimes and the Vatican” alleged that
“Crimen Sollicitationis”, was a secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.
According to Colm O’Gorman of Irish Amnesty International and protagonist of the above programme
The document instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.
Well, Nauman, speaking for myself I would like to say first of all that “version of the truth” sounds like nonsense; second, that current events can hardly be classed as ancient history; third, that whatever the evils of fascism and other nasty ideologies we happen not to be talking about them at the moment, nor are we talking – I hope – about murder; fourth, that as long as religion is allowed to pass off its abuses as the will of God, or feels justified in hiding them to preserve its reputation as the only begetter of moral standards, then it is arguably worse than the secular tyrannies that owe so much to it; and fifth, that there is nothing good to be said about nationalism.
“Crimen Sollicitationis”, a secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. According to Colm O’Gorman the document instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.
Ratz has been vigorously defended by Gerard Henderson, a prominent Catholic layman and Directorof the Sydney Institute, a right-wing think tank. Worth a read, if only for this gem:
For Christ’s sake: emptying the bedpans of the infected is thus morally superior to preventive action.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-mock-the-frock–benedict-speaks-from-the-heart-20101206-18mpb.html
Dr. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, has just this minute on RTE I, apologised to victims of child abuse, who suffered at the hands of one of the ‘All Priests’ Singing Show” artist, Tony Walshe; for the failure of the church to have not intervened, when it should have had in the past. Incidentally, the same archbishop was given the cold shoulder when he went to Rome; for allegedly siding with the victims. The perpetrator of the abominable acts on innocent children even used the confressional box for his antics with one child.
Aye, Sauder, Maids were definitely free, especially when they derived from Goldenbridge Industrial School. They came in very handy where Knder, Küche und Kirche were concerned. Abortion was a talked of issue with respect of the kinder, whilst with the next breath the earthly and heavenly father raised his pure as the driven snow angelic voice on the pulpit to denounce adultery. Not to mention the helpings of the money-filled plates on Sundays and the exaltation given when the pope came to Holy Mother Ireland. Hypocricy of the highest ilk.
“According to Colm O’Gorman of Irish Amnesty International and protagonist of the above programme”
Is this the same AI that has teamed up with Mozam Begg, the tireless fan of taliban Afganistan??
And I must say that paediphile priests in Ireland are rank amateurs when it comes to abusing prepubescent boys.
So the same AI that teams up with an inveterate fan of the “Bachi-boy” Taliban lectures The West on peadophiles?
You’ve convinced me!
“If The Church could be accused of covering anything up, it would be the sexual tastes of CERTAIN homosexuals that are to found within its ranks. Yes, The Church, the homophobic institution par excellence, has gerrymandered things in order to protect homosexuals from exposure and prosecution.”
I wont comment on the main issue of this thread as others do it far better than I, however I would just like to point out that a pedophile is not the same thing or even related to being a homosexual. A person should be careful in suggesting that pedophiles are homosexuals, because it implies that the person suggesting such a thing is attracted to children of the opposite sex him/herself and does not think its pedophilia.
Homosexuals = someone attracted to same peer group same sex.
Heterosexual = someone attracted to same peer group opposite sex.
Pedophile = someone attracted to children any sex.(with possible preferences)
It is possible to be a combination.
Someone who conflates both homosexual and pedophile is probably a closet pedophile, or possibly just being deliberately ignorant.
“Someone who conflates both homosexual and pedophile is probably a closet pedophile, or possibly just being deliberately ignorant.”
By that logic someone who intimiates that rcc priests are a bunch-of-paedophiles ( with stolen art!) is probably a closet Catholic, right?
The article below outlines “cultural” practices that put the RR Church’s wimpy “cultural” peadophilia to shame, and it’s a cultural practice that has already set up shop in The West…so let’s ignore it!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/contractor-bought-afghan-policemen-drugs-boys-cable-reveals/
And I must say that paediphile priests in Ireland are rank amateurs when it comes to abusing prepubescent boys.
Rank amateurs bedamned, they are the most cunning cute hoors that ever walked the face of the earh. The religious master manipulators got away with their disgusting shenanigans for decades upon decades behind closed doors of religious institutions and churches. One only has to read the backgrounds and follow the global trails of the above mentioned paedophiles to get glimpses of their predator psyches. The pain, suicides and life-long trauma they left in their wake knows no bounds. So please, Sauder, try not to talk out of the side of your unknowing innocent sounding mouth. You appear to make so out of touch statements.
Sadly, though,at the end of the day it must take into account that paedophilia is a psychiatric illness and recidivism is the norm and as a consequence children will continue to suffer because of the formers’ illnesses. According to(DSM), paedophilia is a paraphelia problem. The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephelia to the diagnostic criteria, and consequently to rename it to pedohebephilic disorder.
“By that logic someone who intimiates that rcc priests are a bunch-of-paedophiles ( with stolen art!) is probably a closet Catholic, right?”
Nope.
The blame must also be shared by apologists like Sauder.
By their behaviour they are complicit in the institutional rape of children by the paedophile clergy and the cover up by the rcc.
They allow these predators unfettered access to children by their blind acceptance of dogma and their actions make them just as guilty as the monsters that abuse the children.