Benedict XVI: Healing the wounds he helped to create

”We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry. It is more important to have good priests than many priests. We will do everything possible to heal this wound.”-Pope Benedict XVI speaking in Washington DC in April 2008

Where can I nominate someone for a religious hypocrite award? After listening to Benedict XVI condemn the church sex scandal I am amazed by the man’s duplicity since it was his foot dragging and interference which worsened the situation in the first place. That said, I have to admit that it’s EVER so nice of Benedict XVI to show a willingness to heal the wound that he and the Church hierarchy had a hand in creating in the first place.

What a hypocrite

Forgive my stifled laughter but I can’t help but giggle when I hear Pope Benedict XVI refer to the sex abuse scandal as a source of shame within the church. That’s quite a statement when you consider the fact that it was the former Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) who was largely responsible for the foot dragging and legal maneuvering which delayed and continues to delay justice for countless numbers of innocent sex abuse survivors. Throughout the entire scandal the Vatican behaved as if the Catholic Church were above or even more important than truth and honesty, an attitude (problem) which would soon come back to bite the church in its proverbial ass.

People seem to have forgotten that it was Joseph Ratzinger as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith who made it easier for abusive priests to avoid prosecution for their disgusting acts.

As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001, when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II. As part of the implementation of the norms enacted and promulgated on April 30, 2001 by Pope John Paul II, on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church. This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation. The letter extended the prescription or statute of limitations for these crimes to ten years. However, when the crime is sexual abuse of a minor, the “prescription begins to run from the day on that which the minor completes the eighteenth year of age.”[ Lawyers acting for two alleged victims of abuse in Texas claim that by sending the letter the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice...]“*

True to form the church denied that it was not trying to prevent abuse victims from notifying the police, but Ratzinger later undermined this claim when he brushed off the severity of the scandal by quipping that it “only” involved 0.2 percent of the Catholic Church. Which begs the question, how bad does a scandal have to get before it merits public action on the part of the offending institution? What Ratzinger failed to mention was that many of that 0.2 percent were repeat offenders, violating multiple victims. Indeed, the church often worsened the situation by moving abusive priests from one parish to another without warning anyone as to what they were capable of doing to innocent children. Moreover the legal and financial responses here in America were to slick and too well organized to NOT have been organized by an outside source, namely the church hierarchy.

One way in which the church avoided just punishment was through Compensation payouts (hush money). Consider the following examples:

*1997: The Archdiocese of Dallas paid $31 million in compensation payouts.

*June, 2003: The Archdiocese of Louisville paid $257 million to 240 victims.

*September 2003: The Archdiocese of LA paid $660 million to hundreds of people.

*January 2005: The Diocese of Orange apologized to 87 alleged victims and paid out $100 million.

*December 2006: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles paid out $60 million to settle 45 of more than 500 pending cases.

*January 2007: The Diocese of Charleston agreed to pay out $12 million involving numerous cases.

Those are rather hefty payments when you consider the fact that they were meant to silence innocent victims. But it doesn’t end there. Another method by which the church avoided responsibility was bankruptcy. Again, the examples are stunning.

*September 2004: The Diocese of Spokane, Washington paid $48 million as a part of a bankruptcy settlement.

*December, 2004: The Diocese of Tuscon filed for a bankruptcy agreement with alleged sex abuse victims which allowed the Diocese to reorganize in return for a $22.2 million settlement.

*October, 2006: The Diocese of Davenport obtained a bankruptcy agreement after a plethora of sex abuse claims were filed against Bishop Lawrence Soens who was accused of fondling as many as fifteen children.

*February 2007: The San Diego Diocese filed for Chapter 11 protection only hours before the first of 150 lawsuits were due to be heard.

Of course we’re supposed to believe that the church hierarchy had nothing to do with this, but that just doesn’t make sense. From the very beginning the church hierarchy placed the reputation of the church above the well being of the victims. To say that Ratzinger was not a part of this conspiracy would be a study in dishonesty. Ratzinger held a high position within the church hierarchy. Indeed, during the final years of John Paul’s papacy Ratzinger held a special position in that he was the official second fiddle to the Pope. It isn’t as if Ratzinger had no idea as to what was going on. He was a part of the offending hierarchy. He clearly knew WHAT was happening and may well have played a large part in the church cover up.

So why would the church opt to sweep the scandal under the proverbial carpet? I’ve been thinking about that and I have a few ideas. First I believe the church thought it was avoiding a major public relations fiasco. Second, I believe the church genuinely thought it could get away with it. Whether the church likes it or not it has to compete with other Christian sects for members and finances. Openly admitting that it had a problem with child molesting priests would have been a disaster. But once the scandal broke the information began to multiply at an accelerated rate, creating the crisis that the church had sought to repress in the first place. At the same time I believe the church assumed that the power of the church hierarchy was invincible, that the church could do or say whatever it wanted without investigation. Pope John Paul II was an incredibly popular figure and the church hierarchy was powerful so I suspect that the church genuinely believed that it would go unchecked. Little did it understand the nature of the American media. The scent of a juicy sex scandal is just too much for American journalists to ignore. In addition, Americans are many things, both good and bad, but if there’s anything they can’t stand and won’t tolerate it’s the sexual abuse of children. Again the church misunderstood the dynamics of the scandal. So why didn’t the church come clean once the scandal was exposed? That’s easy. Because at that point it would have to admit that it had lied and that would have compounded the disgust. But the lies were exposed and everything the church feared came to pass. In the end the church was forced into damage control, denying the facts in the face of an increasing body of legal and financial information which rightfully cast the church in an unfavorable light.

At the same time the church would have faced criticism of its policy regarding celibate priests. The scandal has produced the same result. As well it should. Let’s face it. The initial purpose of the celibate priesthood had more to do with keeping property, land, in church ownership than it did with theology. Today it has more to do with thought control than anything else. The church knows that one of the best way to control thought is by controlling behavior and if you can control a man’s sexual behavior you can control almost any aspect of that man’s life. In a similar vein the church, through various policies attempts to control womens thoughts and bodies by banning sterilization (they call it mutilation) abortion, and birth control. As if the sex scandal did anything to promote those policies. Rather, it raised a series of important questions. Can the church be trusted? Can sexually active couples have any faith in a bunch of celibate men who aren’t supposed to be versed in sexual behavior? I would argue that the answers are no.

So if you hear someone giggling the next time they refer to Benedict’s condemnation of the church sex scandal you’ll have to forgive my stifled laughter.

Sphere: Related Content