For those not intrepid enough to traverse to the spirituality forum, there was a parallel thread raised there, here are some comments from one of our catholic contributors. I reproduce it here, for your perusal and comments, it begins
A little perspective, please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the priest did not belong to the archdiocese of Munich and so archbishop Ratzinger was not his superior; the parents themselves decided not to contact police about this issue; the decision for the priest to return to ministry was made by the vicar-general. The psychiatrist who counseled this priest never informed Ratzinger himself about the unsuitability of the priest for ministry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
I have already gone to great detail to explain this one too. Allegations did not come to Cardinal Ratzinger until 1996. The allegations did not immediately concern sexual abuse but solicitation in the confessional. These allegations resulted in an immediate trial. Contrary to the article, the Vatican did not sit on the case. By paper's own admission, a trial was immediately instigated. This trial would be halted two years later ]because the priest was about to die.
It seems in this case, the NY has misdirected its criticisms. The archbishop of Milwaukee should be held accountable here, not the Vatican. The archbishop had undeniable evidence of abuse over three long decades which he failed to report. This is the same man who funneled money to silence his gay lover from speaking out. This is the same man who was forced to resign because of his incompetent mismanagement of accusations of sexual abuse. Why the NY fails to mention this only proves their determination to implicate the Pope.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
No doubt Pope Benedict has to explain his handling of the Munich case. Was there a failure? Yes. It is quite clear that he knew that the priest was a sex-abuser and, even though the diocese of Munich was quite large and had many hundreds of priests, his behaviour seems negligent. The Pope should have inquired about this priest; he should have demanded reports about this priest's progress; he should also have been informed about the decision for the priest to return to ministry. However, as it is, it does not seem more than an administrative oversight. The Pope seems to have delegated duties that he should rightfully have overseen more carefully.
For a more balanced perspective of Benedict's handling of sexual abuse claims, there is this column from the same paper:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger actually made it easier to deal with sex abuse allegations. Firstly, in 2001, with the publication of Gravioribus Delictis, he extended the statute of limitations so that victims would have more time to report allegations of abuse. Secondly, he made it compulsory for all bishops to report allegations of abuse to the Vatican. Thirdly, he made is easier to defrock priests. For 60% of cases, priests could be defrocked without need for canonical trial. Benedict is not perfect but his role in the Vatican gives a positive picture of his attempts to deal with sex abuse claims.
Originally posted by FMFSure there will probably be law suits, just like there were against MJ. So what? Its not like they will actually win, or if they do, it will have little effect on the church. They will probably continue as they always have.
So your observation is that there are/will be no law suits against the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by generalissimoI don't think they care much about the bad PR. IF they did, they would have done something long ago.
I find it very unlikely too, but considering he was directly involved in the cover-ups, resignation is only the right thing to do, furthermore, if he does not resign that will ony do further damage to the church.
agreed.
Originally posted by FMFI would think so too.
Really? You predict that paedophilia will continue unchecked in the Catholic Church?
They really have to let women in in their priesthood.
They really should abandon the celibacy.
Then they would have a chance to bring better values into the church.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIm afraid it isn't as simple as you think it is.
I would think so too.
They really have to let women in in their priesthood.
They really should abandon the celibacy.
Then they would have a chance to bring better values into the church.
Abandoning the celibacy will do little to prevent pedofilia, we're talking about people with a serious disorder, I doubt they'd change their ways simply by allowing them to marry. Furthermore, you can have pedofiles who are married and have families, it isn't something exclusive to celibate priests.
As for women in the priesthood, I think its a good idea, but is it going to happen? I doubt it.
Abuse furore 'like anti-Semitism'
Pope Benedict's personal preacher has compared criticism of the pontiff and Church over child abuse to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.
The Rev Raniero Cantalamessa was speaking at Good Friday prayers in St Peter's Basilica, attended by the Pope. In his sermon, he quoted a Jewish friend as saying the accusations reminded him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/8601084.stm
It seems the Vatican has hired some whodey-like and utherpendragon-like spin doctors. Legitimate criticisms raised. BOING. Out comes the "Anti-Semitic" card.
These imbeciles are as ridiculous as the RHP resident retards.
Those "comebacks" cover them even with more shame.
And the metaphor used makes it ever worse: how dare these
filthy rich pedophiles use antisemitism provided the role
they played in World War II ????
Preposterous!
---
Edit.
Reactions, already:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8601389.stm
The head of Germany's Central Council of Jews described
the Easter sermon as unprecedented "insolence"
I think the word 'insolence' falls quite short.
Originally posted by SeitseIm guessing the pope is not the only one who should resign, there's a whole bunch of people in Rome who are just as bad as he is.
These imbeciles are as ridiculous as the RHP resident retards.
Those "comebacks" cover them even with more shame.
And the metaphor used makes it ever worse: how dare these
filthy rich pedophiles use antisemitism provided the role
they played in World War II ????
Preposterous!
---
Edit.
Reactions, already:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europ ...[text shortened]... ermon as unprecedented "insolence"[/i]
I think the word 'insolence' falls quite short.