No 'Honeymoon' For This Pope
Joe Gandelman
The above headline is not a joke...but accurate.
He barely has been in office a week, and already Pope Benedict XVI is facing his first scandal if allegations in England's Observer are correct that the new Pope "obstructed justice" by issuing an order making sure that the church's investigations into child sex abuse were secretly carried out:
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
This letter came out as part of a lawsuit:
The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.
What's going on? It's hard to tell if all of this is that many people wanted someone exactly like John Paul II, or if it truly is because for many years some in the church and in the press strongly disagreed with the new Pope's views. But there's a lot of negative material coming out in a short time — and Michelle Malkin has links to a lot of it.
UPDATE: John Cole notes a disturbing trend on how this Pope is being characterized -- and how some people view religion in general these days.
Taking a look at it, I see an attempt to protect people from scurrilous charges...anyone can level a charge of child molestation, and if the name of the accused comes out, then his reputation is forever ruined, even if there was no merit to the case. Keeping everything confidential ensure that the unjustly accused are not ruined.
Besides, what is the point of waiting UNTIL the suposed victim reaches adulthood plus a decade? Something stinks in both courts...the Vatican handling of an on-going problem and the news attack dogs that seem hellbent on a scanal (which may verifiably need airing, but they seem bent on finding it if they have to dig for years).
If you read much about Ratzinger's tenure as cardinal, he worked hard from the Vatican to give as much authority as possible to local bishops to deal severely with the guilty and to protect the innocent. That he complained that some of those raising the issue were exaggerating it in order to slap the church is now being used against him, but it's wrong. As I've shown in the past, sexual abuse of children by public school teachers is actually more common than abuse by the clergy, yet you don't hear calls for the head of the American Federation of Teachers or the National Education Association to answer for this. Maybe we should?
A priest's, and a teacher's, job is not to protect themselves but to protect their charges (parishoners or students) from abuse and to shepard them to adulthood/knowledge of God. When they fail, through covering up for those that directly commit the crimes, they should face jail time and stiff fines. I don't believe anyone should be protected from it (including those US miltiary chaplains that get up to it - and they do).
However, if the memo is true then there is a giant differance between giving the local Bishop the power to deal with it, and in effect saying that only the Bishop can know about it (to the exclusion of the law enforcement officials tasked by SOCIETY AT LARGE to protect the vulnerable). This scandal isn't going to go away by telling Bishops to keep it quiet for a decade or more...nor should it.
Oh wait. The Sec Ed is Republican. She can't be held accountable. I forgot. Sorry.
Everyone who reads Dean's World by now is acquainted with my views about the Roman Catholic Church, its structure, its historical roles, its current problems. But the only matter I could have had against Cardinal Ratzinger personally was the fact that he deserted his German military unit late in World War II, and that has nothing to do with his role as church leader. And as a non-Catholic and non-believer, I have no ethical right to pass judgement on whomever the church fathers appoint in Rome as their pontifex maximus.
Many others outside his church would be well advised to take the same approach. Wish him well in his leadership role. Wish his church well in overcoming to whatever extent possible the obvious problems his churchmen face in maintaining the viability of their hierarchy. And so on.
Otherwise, all that we are doing with them is wishing social chaos to be visited upon the billion Roman Catholics and their church. That is neither ethical nor advisable, considering the overall world situation.
If any of what I have written here seems to contradict anything I have written earlier on this or other topics, remember my motto: View each situation and argument relative to their own specific merits. Otherwise, we all become just another pack of wrangling ideologues. And I don't know about you folks, but Stefi wants something more than that from me as we grow old together.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Teachers' unions, on the other hand, are directly involved in the hiring and firing of teachers, and often play a role in defending teachers from charges of malfeasance, as well as negotiating contracts that make it possible to cover up member misdeeds. They are the more appropriate comparison, if we're going to make one at all.
In other words, the Church's proceedings are to be kept secret, but the underlying facts, as known to the victim, the abuser, and any witnesses, are fair game to prosecutors and defense. In this case, it appears that the whiners are looking to co-opt the documentation of Church proceedings to bolster their own case. Understandable, but probably not legitimate.