BishopAccountability.org
	Despite Campaigner's Charges, the Pope Has Acted against Child Abuse By Patrick Kenny One in Four [Ireland] October 5, 2006 http://www.oneinfour.org/news/news2006/campaigner/ Whether everyone in the Catholic Church accepts it or not, a debt of gratitude is owed to campaigners for justice like Colm O'Gorman. By revealing their horrific stories, abuse victims have helped the Church to confront, sometimes unwillingly, a festering source of pain and shame. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin spoke for many ordinary Catholics when he declared that stories of child sexual abuse filled him with a "violent anger". This abuse caused incalculable damage to children and their families, and it has cost the church much credibility and moral authority. But just as bad as the abuse itself were the cover-ups involved. By bringing embarrassing cases to light a real service has been done for the Church, even if Catholics didn't always see ti that way. But despite the good that Colm O'Gorman has done in fighting for justice, his recent initiatives may have damaged his own credibility. In last Sunday's BBC Panorama programme, he latched onto supposedly secret documents, threw in some stories about priests apparently being sheltered by the Vatican and emerged with a conspiracy theory leading all the way to the desk of Pope Benedict. One of the programme's main 'proofs' of a Vatican abuse cover-up was a document entitled Crimen Sollicitationis which, while published in 1962, traces its origins back to the 1700s. The document itself is complex and deals mainly with offences relating to confession. While it requires silence involved in a Church trial, this is necessary for at least three reasons; it allows witnesses to speak freely, it protects the reputation of the accused until guilt is established and it allows victims to come forward free from invasive publicity. Many canon law experts agree that this document did not prevent bishops from reporting abuse cases to the secular authorities. In so far as they did fail to inform the police of such crimes, the bishops were wrong, but their error stems from misplaced clericalism, not Church policy. In fact, rather than fostering cover-ups, the document itself mandates that anyone aware of such allegations of solicitation must report them to the relevant bishop or face excommunication themselves. In 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger reserved exclusive Church jurisdiction over such cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican, primarily with the aim of speeding up the defrocking of priests. Five priests have already been dismissed in the Ferns diocese alone as a result of this new procedure. The scandals that have come to light in the last decade have been as a result of mismanagement at a local level. Far from being a cover-up, centralisation is aimed at making the dismissal of priests more effective. Some local bishops managed the issues well. On his radio programme on Monday, Pat Kenny praised the work of Archbishop Martin in ensuring that all abuse cases are automatically reported to the gardai. But O'Gorman immediately replied that the archbishop's approach was opposed by some in the Church. If by this he means the priests, he is stretching the facts. What priests have opposed is the policy of standing down after one allegation, no matter how unfounded it might appear. Perhaps these concerns are misplaced, but they stem from a desire to protect the good names of innocent priests who are falsely accused. They have at least a debatable point. But their concerns are a far cry from the general opposition to Archbishop Martin's work that O'Gorman implies. Despite claims to the contrary, the Pope's record show where he stands on these issues. Easter is the most important time in the life of the Church and is marked by unique religious celebrations. Among the most popular liturgies in Rome are the Stations of the Cross on God Friday when the Pope traditionally carries a cross around the Colosseum in commemoration of the crucifixion of Christ. Last year, as Pope John Paul lay dying, Cardinal Ratzinger carried the cross in his place. More significantly, however, he was chosen to write the reflections for this event. Just like his recent comments on Islam, he was stingingly direct. At one point in his meditations in front of tens of thousands of pilgrims, and aware that his comments would receive instant media attention, he lamented the sins of Catholic priests with these words; "Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? …. How often do we celebrate only ourselves? How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him. How much pride, how much self-complacency?" It hardly sounds like a man who wants to hush up all abuse problems and sweep them under the carpet. If Colm O'Gorman were correct that this Pope is responsible for a massive cover-up of child abuse cases, he has a strange way of showing it in practice. On two separate occasions within the first 13 months of his papacy he imposed strict penalties on famous founders of religious orders accused of abuse. The first was Fr Gino Burresi, founder of the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Largely unknown in Ireland. He was immensely popular in Italy and recruited 150 men to his order in little more than a decade. But neither his apparent success nor his advanced age of 73 made him immune to sanction by Pope Benedict. Following an investigation into allegations of abuse, the Pope banned him practising as a priest in any context whatsoever. For a priest, especially the founder of an order, this is a stunning Church penalty. The same happened a year later in the case of 86-year-old Mexican Fr Marcial Maciel , the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Hugely influential in the Church, his order was one of the fastest growing worldwide and has an associated lay group with tens of thousands of members. As a cardinal, Ratzinger initiated an investigation into accusations against Maciel; as Pope he imposed a ban on public practice as a priest and a requirement to live a life of penance. Many Catholics believe Fr Maciel to be innocent, and indeed he may be – there was no Church trial or judgement of his guilt or otherwise because of his advanced age and poor health. But Pope Benedict still took a consistently hard line even when there was only a question mark of suspicion. Both of these cases were made public by way of official Vatican pronouncements and not by leaks or investigative journalists. Does tackling two cases of high-profile founders of religious orders and imposing one of the most serious penalties possible look like a cover-up? How objective can O'Gorman and Panorama really be given that they never even mentioned either case? Were they aware of these cases? If not, their investigative journalism is not up to much. If they were aware, why did they leave them out? Surely it couldn't be because it would spoil a one-sided character assassination of Pope Benedict?
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.