Replies

The article contains facts such as dates, meetings and statements.

Specifically:
The Vatican took action only after bishops from English-speaking nations became so concerned about resistance from top church officials that the Vatican convened a secret meeting in 2000 to hear their complaints. At this meeting, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, then the head of the Congregation for the Clergy, set the tone, playing down sexual abuse as an unavoidable fact of life, and complaining that lawyers and the media were unfairly focused on it, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. What is more, he asked, is it not contradictory for people to be so outraged by sexual abuse when society also promotes sexual liberation?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, but for the two decades Ratzinger was in charge of that office her never asserted that authority.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome.

Besides Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bishops were sending off their files on abuse cases to the Congregations for the Clergy, for Bishops, for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and for the Evangelization of Peoples — plus the Vatican’s Secretariat of State; its appeals court, the Apostolic Signatura; and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Cardinal Ratzinger eliminated national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it in their countries. He declared that such conferences had “no theological basis” and “do not belong to the structure of the church.” Individual bishops, he reaffirmed, reigned supreme in their dioceses and reported only to the authority of the pope in Rome.

John Paul rejected its proposal to let bishops dismiss priests using administrative procedures, without canonical trials.

In May 2001, John Paul issued a confidential apostolic letter instructing that all cases of sexual abuse by priests were thenceforth to be handled by Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. The letter was called “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela,” Latin for “Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments.” In an accompanying cover letter, Cardinal Ratzinger, who is said to have been heavily involved in drafting the main document, wrote that the 1922 and 1962 instructions that gave his office authority over sexual abuse by priests cases were “in force until now.”

This sums it up:
Nicholas P. Cafardi, a Catholic expert in canon law who is dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law, said, “When it came to handling child sexual abuse by priests, our legal system fell apart. When you think how much pain could’ve been prevented, if we only had a clear understanding of our own law,” he said. “It really is a terrible irony. This did not have to happen.”

Since you posted a few quotes:

Cardinal Ratzinger eliminated national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it in their countries.

When? How? It wasn't his area to do and as far as I know the bishops' conferences are all intact and quite frankly they can agree on things, but the conferences have no legal power within the chruch. The USCCB passed all the documentation in 1984 and, as each bishop has to deal with his own diocese, some dioceses got cleaned up and some didn't. Mine actually did. So this statement is iffy at best.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, but for the two decades Ratzinger was in charge of that office her never asserted that authority.

No source of documentation? It's my understanding that the authority, until 2001, was with the Congregation of Clergy unless the case involved the confessional and with the seal involved, it went to Doctrine of the Faith. For whatever reason, that was changed.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome.

??????? My archbishop sent priests to prison in those years and had no problem laicizing. This is a cop out if some bishop actually suggested it, say one of the media darlings that actually was relieved of command early.

This is the New York Times. When it comes to Catholicism, I wouldn't believe a word printed. Honestly, it looks like this is meant to stir up trouble. It's the July blinker on a much larger PR campaign. And having a degree in communications, it's not hard to see the pattern.

The matter cannot be reduced to a legal one, as Carfardi’s summmary tries to do. The failure was the failure of unfaithful churchmen who were and are supported by unfaithful lay Catholics as well as people outside the Church who wish to destroy the Church asa public entity. At the core is a rejection of traditional Catholic sexual morality. For instance, the matters of homosexuality, of radical feminism, of the very worldly liberation theology, of the actions of prelates such as the Belgium Cardinal who is now under the gun. are put aside in an attempt to fix blame on the present pope. In short, the kind of confusion that Paul sort to clear up with respect the behavior of Christians in Corinth. The devil is at work here, but the author of this article that he is a player in the game.