If there was any back up for this I missed it.they (the Catholic Church) were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to.
Not being the trial judge doesn’t mean they were only responsible for doctrinal issues.Being responsible for doctrine does not mean being the trial judge in every canonical case. Bishops are responsible for their own priests in general. See my note below on the situation prior to 2001
Because I think that the institution of the Church became more important than the message.Why do you make such a distinction if you don't believe in God? The Bible was written by humans too.
I believe that he intervened in cases in which he knew those involved or where representations were made by people he know.I know that's what you're suggesting. And I believe some of it it true and some of it isn't. I don't believe there is serious evidence that Benedict was involved in some elaborate cover-up.
His actions as Pope suggest otherwise to me. His instructions to the Irish bishops suggest otherwise.The requirement for allegations to be conveyed to the Vatican started in 2001 with the change in role of the CDF, which occurred at Benedit's own request. Prior to that time the responsibility for both investigating and disciplining perpetrators in abuse cases rested with the dioceses. Benedict became Pope in 2005. That's four years -- during which time he made sweeping changes to the processes for clerical prosecutions and for fast-tracking them. So no, I don't think your point has any substance whatsoever.
I’m just asking for your opinion on the matter as it is pertinent to the discussion and contextualises your comments.Fair enough. Then the burden of proof falls to those others. What's their evidence?
The issue is the cover up by the institutional Church, not the abuse by its members. That’s what sets it apart.Try here. There was a higher rate among teachers, and among men in general.
There's plenty of institutional blame at diocesan level. But the whole nonsensical and tiresome "rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt" argument depends on pinning the blame at the very top. That's when we depart from the real world and enter Dan Brown territory.The issue is the cover up by the institutional Church, not the abuse by its members. That’s what sets it apart.
There's plenty of institutional blame at diocesan level. But the whole nonsensical and tiresome "rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt" argument depends on pinning the blame at the very top. That's when we depart from the real world and enter Dan Brown territory.
That’s a very weak response.Your second to last post is supposition and innuendo and I don't have time to refute stuff for which the evidence is all in the public domain.
Anyone interested in determining the truth in good faith can find it.
It purports to do so, but it is a seriously crazy misrepresentation.This article from 2003 outlines details of the document sent in 1962, with the seal of Pope John XXIII, instructing all Bishops to keep all allegations of sexual abuse by clergy secret and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'." The "Holy Office" is short for Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was called at the time. That's where Ratzinger worked before he became Pope.
Who said that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case?The suggestion that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case and prohibited dioceses from dealing with civil authorities is simply wrong
Who said that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case?
The accusation is that they set the policy, not that they implemented it in most cases... You still haven't addressed the specific allegations made against Ratzinger, allegations which would speak to his mindset and attitude to such cases.
The idea that cover-ups only happened at diocesan level and the successive Popes and those in the Vatican were unaware of the issues is just ridiculous. The cover-ups were inter-generational and the Pope and senior Bishops and Cardinals in the Vatican came from dioceses around the world; they didn't emerge, perfectly formed, in a bubble in the Vatican.
Anyone can write stuff in Wikipedia.
So where did I say that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case?You did: "I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk".
Okay, so you finally acknowledge that those in the Vatican were aware of all these cases and how they were being handled. If they were not happy with alleged victims being sworn to secrecy in order to prevent them pursuing civil actions then why, over the course of 40 years, did they not let their subordinate Bishops know?Firstly, as we established, the accusations didn't go to Rome to be dealt with, only summary reporting after decisions by local bishops.
We've dealt with that.Secondly, they didn't go to the CDF, they went to the Rota up to 2001.
You are ascribing motive without any evidence.Thirdly, Ratzinger himself requested -- and was granted -- access to cases by the CDF from 2001 because he wanted oversight of the abuse issues and to clean up the act of bishops who were failing in their duties.
The accusations are that as the second most powerful man in Pope John Paul II's papacy he could and should have done far more but instead only intervened to support priests who were accused of abuse. Just Google "John Kelly SOCA" for how abuse survivors in Ireland regard Katzinger.You haven't been very clear on what the accusation is. You keep on repeating that I've ignored specific allegations but you haven't said what they are or provided any evidence for them.
No I haven't. I've asked you for your opinion.In fact you've said that I have to provide evidence to negate them.
Now you are really being absurd. You've already acknowledged that reports on abuse cases all over the world were being given to the Vatican since the 1960's and that Katzinger saw them all from at least 2001 onward, even if be was blissfully unaware of them before that (maybe he never watched TV or real a Newspaper).I'm happy to look at your evidence for that allegation, but your appeal to absurdity isn't evidence.
and that makes it wrong?Anyone can write stuff in the Guardian and in the latter case it's guaranteed to be a handpicked left winger.
I strongly suggest that you read the linked pdf. All parties are bound to secrecy, including the accuser (victim) under threat of excommunication. Therefore only the Holy Office can determine if a case should be referred to the civil authorities. This is from the 1960's.Those instructions refer to a tribunal constituted under canon law. Of course the proceedings are to be treated as confidential, like any proceedings held in camera would be in a civil court of law. It doesn't mean there couldn't be a separate civil proceeding, or that a cleric couldn't give evidence at one. It simply means that the proceedings of the canonical case are confidential.
Cannon Law has no more legal weight in this country, or the USA, Australia, the UK etc, (or Communist China) than the rules of a Golf Club. By swearing victims to secrecy they forced them to not report their abuse to the civil authorities.
Are you seriously suggesting that the exact same interpretation of the 1962 instruction was reached in every country without any guidance from the Vatican, that the Vatican never became aware of that interpretation and that none of the Bishops from any of those countries who ended up working in the Vatican ever mentioned it Ratzinger or JPII or any other Cardinal or Bishop who received any of these reports?
Are you also suggesting that in never occurred to Ratzinger to ask about the details of any case and if he did then how the Church treated the evidence it had gathered never came up?
If he was aware of any of the cover-ups or how the 1962 document was being interpreted in any case and didn't act to change that interpretation then he was part of the cover-up.
So you don't think that those same Bishops and priests, upon being promoted/ moved to Rome and gaining offices of influence should have done anything?What I think is that the cover-ups and misguided attempts at rehabilitation by bishops were so successful that the vast majority of clergy (let alone the public) had no idea what was going on. Some of it was down to criminal culpability on the part of bishops and much of it down to the church's institutional ineptitude.
So the guy who was the second most powerful person in the Vatican under JPII and was an influential and powerful figure within the RC Church for decades before that knew nothing about the global story of child sex abuse within the RC Church... sure. He must have not listened to the radio, watches TV or read a newspaper either.He never had any direct pastoral role as a bishop, being briefly the archbishop -- for four years in the 1970s -- of a diocese with three suffragan bishops.
We are just going around in circles now with you refusing to address any of the issues.... all of which ties in with Ratzinger's increasing concern leading to his request to handle this issue at the CDF from 2001.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?