Posted on 07/02/2010 4:21:11 AM PDT by TSgt
In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.
The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.
But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The article is slanted to say the least. Ten years ago the bishops were blamed. Now it is ONE man - the pope who ic being blamed and that is happening only because he is an effective, orthodox, conservative pope. This can bee seen in the fact that they rely on Nicholas P. Cafardi, an Obama supporter, who several years ago published a book called Before Dallas which squarely blamed the bishops for their handling of the abuse cases. Now he has shifted to blaming the Vatican directly - because that’s the latest fad.
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29897
I have no reason to EVER believe anything the Times says about the faith or the pope or to believe their understanding of things.
See post 21.
The structure of the Catholic Church is frequently misunderstood, and many people, particularly non-Catholics, think it is a place where the Pope nods his head and minions run off to do his bidding. For better or for worse, this has never been how things have worked; if you look as far back as the Middle Ages, and in fact, even look back at the early Church, you will see how difficult it was to exert authority over an increasingly wide-spread Church.
The bishops, successors to the Apostles, are supposed to be the direct channels for the teaching and sacramental life of the Church. But there are lots of bishops and historically many of them have simply gone their own way without Rome’s being able to do much about it until such time as things reach a crisis point and these bishops are their own undoing. The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.
In my opinion, however, something that added to the difficulties of managing the Church was the vast change that occurred at Vatican II. Bishops suddenly got the idea that they were virtually free agents (although on a national basis) and the establishment of the dread national councils of bishops (the USCCB, in this case) gave them the power as a bloc to resist any supervision or discipline. The bishops’ conferences or councils were not provided for in canon law, IIRC, and were only retroactively added during the revision of the code, after they had already been in operation for some time.
What these organizations did was enable the liberal power-players appointed by Paul VI not only to govern their own dioceses sometimes in opposition to Rome, but to prevent individual bishops who were less powerful (from smaller dioceses, who were often more orthodox) from doing the things that would have been right to correct any problems at a local level and to communicate with Rome. The various bishops’ committees on child abuse were less a way of solving the problem than a way of preventing Rome from having any effect and making any changes (particularly anything that would clean up the problem with gays, which is something Ratzinger did work on and which has earned him the hatred of the gay lobbies and the NY Times).
Disobedient bishops have always been a problem and they have always been very difficult to remove, in part because they are not just functionaries, the way a Protestant bishop might be, but have a function in the sacraments and the theological life of the church. Priests, for example, are essentially just the delegates of the bishop, who imparts his sacramental powers to them.
As for the Times, they hate BXVI because he has always been on their hit list. They liked JPII, partly because he was a lot more liberal than Ratzinger, and partly precisely because he was a very lax and weak administrator. Many of the truly awful things happened when Paul VI was Pope, but the 80’s (JPII) weren’t great, either. On his behalf, however, I will say that JPII did seem to have the intention of reforming things, but after the assassination attempt, he seemed to lose his direction (possibly because of his health problems as a result of his injuries) and I think it was really only the increasing influence of Ratzinger that prevented even more chaos.
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.
I believe the article gives Ratzinger more credit than his predecessor when it comes to the handling of abuse.
The issue is not so much with Ratzinger but the complex and confusing bureaucracy and associated laws in which the cases were handled or not handled.
With regard to shifting blame to the Vatican, isn’t that where church laws and policies are created and approved?
The American Bishops proposed norms which were initially rejected by the Vatican as an example.
You wrote:
“I believe the article gives Ratzinger more credit than his predecessor when it comes to the handling of abuse.”
It should.
“The issue is not so much with Ratzinger but the complex and confusing bureaucracy and associated laws in which the cases were handled or not handled.”
How exactly is taht an issue? The scandal broke in 2002. Only now the Times is printing an article like this? Do you se how you are being played here? The Times will come up with a different slant every few months to try and find an excuse as to why they should keep the drumbeat going against the Church which you and they hate so much.
“With regard to shifting blame to the Vatican, isn’t that where church laws and policies are created and approved?”
Is it where the abuse happened? No, it isn’t. So far we have seen the following: priests were blamed, bishops were blamed, celibacy was blamed, patriarchy was blamed, the old pope was blamed, the new pope was blamed, the Vatican was blamed, cardinals were blamed, bishops’ conferences were blamed, and on occasion even the laity were blamed. The simple fact is that the liberals out there - and their anti-Catholic helpers - will blame anyone and everyone who is Catholic, Catholic theology, Catholic canon law, Catholic practices, etc. until everything and everyone Catholic is some how tainted in the view of the public. And you’re playing right along with it.
“The American Bishops proposed norms which were initially rejected by the Vatican as an example.”
So what? Again, that means nothing in itself. The American bishops could have simply done their job and this would never have happened.
Thank you for your enlightening and courteous reply.
To an outside observer, it appears the Catholic church is an organized yet disorganized institution. The church maintains strict Canon law and contains a formal leadership structure however Bishops retain extreme autonomy with little concern for redress from the Pope.
For example, I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.
It would appear that this organized/disorganized system opens the church to tremendous liability.
Perhaps the answer is to give the Pope more power or completely disorganize?
Ah yes, the New York Times is so even-handed in general to begin with, of course.
It's even fairer to institutions that all of its employees despise.
It's interesting that a self-styled conservative would point to the umpteenth NYT hatchet job on the Pope as "even-handed."
You wrote:
“For example, I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.”
(sigh) Law WAS REMOVED. He is no longer the head of a diocese. As far as I know he heads nothing else of importance either. Mahoney will be out in a few months. And quite frankly no one should listen to what you wnat anyway.
Mmmmm, yes and no. It's more like a gigantic family that has some pretty severe disfunctional tendedcies.
I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.
I've lost track of Law, unless he's still the rector at St. Mary Major. Mahoney is being pushed out early. For a sitting cardinal to get a coadjutor before 80, let alone have his resignation at 75 accepted (see Egan in New York, although he was 77), indicates displeasure from Rome. Mahoney turns 75 in February and he is gone. His replacement is already there and he has a massive mess to clean up.
If you’re going to be that picky about Law, you might add Weakland, Hubbard, Pilarcyk, Trautman and a few others to the list. They’re still around making nuisances of themselves. Not to mention the ghost of one Cardinal Bernardin, the worst of the lot, who’s influence and reach are still being felt 14 years after his death.
I trust NYT coverage on any religion matters as much as I trust their coverage of the Tea Party movement.
An observer of the NYT would know that their specialty is not in making up "facts" but in selectively reporting certain facts, editing out others, and using this carefully edited approach to twist the story toward their favored interpretation.
Here is a key example of this technique, from the article:
"The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm. But for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere."
It is factually true that the predecessor congregation to the CDF, the Holy Office, was given this authority in 1922.
What the article fails to mention is that in 1967, in the wake of the Sercond Vatican Council, the various congregations of the Roman Curia were radically restructured: some disappeared, some were merged, some were created, some were given new responsibilities and some had responsibilities taken away.
One pre-Vatican II congregation - the Congregation of the Council, was transformed into the Congregation for the Clergy and was assigned the responsibility of the discipline of the clergy.
So from 1922-1967 the predecessor to the CDF was responsible for such cases. From 1967-2001 the CftC was the responsible entity and then, after Pope John Paul II specifically transferred these responsibilities to the CDF with an official motu proprio (namely Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela) in 2001, it was the CDF from 2001 until now.
The NYT conveniently leaves these facts out of their abbreviated timeline, preferring to imply that from 1981-2001 the current Pope was responsible for this discipline and did nothing.
You wrote:
“Removed means gone, not in a few months, not in a ceremonial position, but gone. Neither have been removed.”
Nope. Removed means no longer in the position he once had. He was removed from the position. Mahoney will be too. Sorry, we don’t follow your made up phony definitions.
“I will ask you one last time to stop making this personal.”
I never made it personal. Pointing out that there is no such thing as “cannon law” is not making it personal. Stop make false accusations.
“I have been very courteous in my replies to you and others and would ask that you do the same.”
I will merely keep pointing out the truth. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem not me.
The photograph that leads this article is carefully chosen: a black and white photo of Cardinal Ratzinger walking in review of a bunch of German guys at attention wearing identical uniforms.
There are any number of photos of the Cardinal from that time period that are in full color, with him sitting down and smilingly conversing with students and parishioners, etc.
The NYT staff clearly combed the archives looking for a photo that would subconsciously evoke a Nazi era feel - black and white photography, obviously German setting, rows of men in identical costume standing at attention, etc.
Given the NY Times historic anti-Catholic bigotry I have difficulty looking at any essay on the Church as serious commentary. Albeit dressed in an the clothing of analysis of the sex abuse scandal this is another hit-piece on the Pope. The Times could show its bonafides if it discussed the real nature of the scandal. It’s not about pedophilia but ephebophilia largely of a homosexual nature. Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The Times won’t touch that because it would interfere with their orthodox PC credentials.
Of course it contains facts.
The problem is that its thesis (that Ratzinger/Benedict is culpable) is not supported by the facts cited.
It’s a trash article.
And anyone with any dose of objective critical analysis skills could see that at first reading.
Had enough of them (de)merits yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.