BishopAccountability.org
	See No Evil? By Jon Carroll San Francisco Chronicle March 16, 2010 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/DDAL1CG7F9.DTL The scandal in Germany is blowing up, and more and more it begins to resemble Watergate. There's lots of stonewalling - over a much longer period than the Nixon debacle took to unfold - and lots of quiet "reassignments," and an enormous amount of energy devoted to protecting the top guy. And still the question is: What did the pope know and when did he know it? The scandal, of course, involves the molesting of children by priests. This is not a new problem; a decade ago in this country, the cases grew so numerous and the behavior by church officials so callous that some churches were forced to close and many dioceses were forced to contract. Much of this information comes from a series of articles by Nicholas Kulish and Rachel Donadio of the New York Times. The opinions, however, are entirely mine. The situation is different in Germany. There, unlike in the United States, the church cannot be sued. So it is up to the Holy See to provide financial recompense to the abused and to discipline the abusers, including, if it sees fit, to bring them up on charges before an ecclesiastical court. The names of the priests and dispositions of their cases are rarely made public. The case that started the uproar is that of a priest known only as H. In 1980, H. moved to a parish in Munich, where he "underwent therapy" after accusations that he molested boys under his pastoral care. This was done with the knowledge and approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, the man who later became Pope Benedict XVI. Three years later, when Ratzinger was still the archbishop of Munich, H. moved to the town of Grafing and resumed pastoral work, including contact with minors. In 1985, H. was removed from his post and accused of sexual abuse and received a suspended sentence of five years. He was also ordered to undergo therapy, because that had worked so very well the first time. In 1986, incredibly, H. went to the town of Garching and once again worked as a priest. In 2008, he was removed from office and (here I quote the Times) "is now allowed to work as a spa and tourism pastor as long as he is not involved in work with young people." I did not know that there were spa and tourism pastors, but I do not oppose the idea. Through his spokesman, the pope denied any knowledge of H.'s case beyond the initial decision to bring him to Munich. This assertion was met by skepticism by the Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, author of numerous books on marriage and several on sexual abuse. "Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He's the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention." The Vatican went on the offensive - not against the abusers and those who sought to protect them but against anyone who could possibly hint that the pope knew anything about anything, anywhere. This too is like Watergate - the burglars and the dirty tricksters were defended or cut loose, never censured, all to protect the president from accusations that he was the ringleader of the conspiracy. I am not suggesting that the pope is the ringleader of some sexual abuse cabal; I don't believe that. I am suggesting that he is following and directing the institutional imperative to protect the top guy, that is, him. It would be a great blow to the church if the pope were seen to be winking and shuffling and generally minimizing what is in fact the destruction of human lives. If the Roman Catholic Church is so firm in its commitment to protect innocent fetuses from harm, how come it's not quite so firm in its commitments to protect innocent children from the predations of its priests? Pope Benedict is famous for his stern lectures on morality and his disdain for homosexuality - plus, of course, his absolute refusal to consider women for the priesthood. How would it appear if he were looking the other way when sexual behavior far worse than consensual sex before marriage or homosexual relations was running rampant in his own church, under the seal and protection of the papacy itself? The current pope is on record in several instances as minimizing the pedophilia scandal. He is on record as preferring these matters to be dealt with in secrecy, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And it does seem to be true that "secret" penalties for ecclesiastical pedophiles are a lot less harsh than those meted out in civilian courts to civilian pedophiles. I am not and never have been a Roman Catholic. I admire the church's work among the poor and the sick, particularly in Latin America. I dislike a great many of its policies. I would nevertheless be unhappy to see it destroy itself with a worldwide pedophilia cover-up. Big institutions are the same, though; they always stonewall; they always try to prevent the truth from coming out. If the pope is implicated, the pope should say so. That's the lesson of Watergate, Monicagate and a lot of other gates. The strange adventures of the priest called H., and what happened next. The best you can hope for in this life is that your delusions are benign and your compulsions have jcarroll@sfchronicle.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.