Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« Who knew?! | Main | Discovering Wisdom in the Wilderness »

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Comments

Ed Peters

Carl, I'll send you a Christmas card. :)

(note to Ang: please send carl olson xmas cd.)

Ed Peters

Carl, more seriously, we are all "a disgrace to the human race", but some of us are sorry about it, eh?

Bryan

Sullivan (and others like him) proves, again, that he cares more about implicating the Pope and other bishops in crime, rather than help the victims of abuse. Too bad for him not too many people really take him too seriously anymore.

David

Here's some very important imformation in the most recent New York Times article titled
"Psychiatrist Says Church Was Warned About Priest"

01) The psychiatrist said in an interview he did not have any direct communications with Archbishop Ratzinger and did not know if the archbishop knew about his warnings. Though he said he spoke with several senior church officials, Dr. Huth’s main contact at the time was a bishop, Heinrich Graf von Soden-Fraunhofen, who died in 2000.

02) The three sets of parents who complained to the church, said that Father Hullermann had “sexual relations” with their children in February 1979, according to a statement this week by the diocese in Essen.In the minutes taken by the priest in charge of the parish at the meeting with the parents, he noted that they “would not file charges under the current circumstances” in order to protect their children.

03) Spared prosecution after his transgressions in Essen, which according to the statement released by the diocese he “did not dispute,” Father Hullermann instead was ordered to undergo therapy with Dr. Huth. The archdiocese said that order was approved personally by Archbishop Ratzinger.

------------------------------------------

Key to this is that the parents chose not to file charges in the diocese in Essen before the Bishop of that diocese contacted Archbishop Ratzinger about providing a place in which the man could be treated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.html

Sandra Miesel

"Blessed are you when men speak ill of you. . . ."

Norah

The psychiatrist said that he issued written reports - to whom and where are they? Did not the archbishop wish to know how the therapy for Fr H was proceeding? There is too much inuendo and speculation - a plain statement of the facts of the matter needs to be made. I think it is time that the pope issued a statement about this matter stating plainly - with dates - what he said and did about this matter.

Brian

As "recently" as 2002? That was 8 years ago!

Mulder

"You're a disgrace to the human race."

The irony is stunning.

LJ

Therapy. We look back on that now and shake our heads and it seems to us that there is always some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.

David, above, points out that the parents in the case at hand decided not to lay charges.

Father Benedict Groeschel, a psychologist himself, explains in his three part series, An Urgent Appeal;

( http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp)

that the prevalent wisdom of the time, in the secular world, was that pedaphiles could be cured or their behaviour satisfactorily modified by therapy. As the report from Ireland points out, many Bishops abandoned Canon Law to follow this trend.

We may look back, justifiably I think, and wonder how they could miss the fact that this behavior is first and foremost sin, and develop their opinions and policies with that firmly in mind.

But it must be remembered that much of our outrage and that of the Church hating pundits is predicated on our current understanding that pedaphiles and the like are not "curable" in any ordinary sense of the word and must be removed from contact with children forever, for their own sake and above all the sake of the children.

LJ

These three are better download links to Father Groeschel's remarks;

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=urgent1.mp3&source=frmselectseries.asp&seriesID=&T1=urgent appeal

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=urgent2.mp3&source=frmselectseries.asp&seriesID=&T1=urgent appeal

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=urgent3.mp3&source=frmselectseries.asp&seriesID=&T1=urgent appeal

Dan

David's post answers a question that I had been asking myself: did the parents know at the time? It is the parents that should be informed and, once informed, it should be up to them whether to contact the police.

I have concluded that it is unlikely that Pope Benedict knew of the decision to place the molester priest back into ministry. My reasoning is that it would not make sense even from a "damage control" standpoint for the Vatican to try to cover up what happened. The Vatican has stated flatly that Pope Benedict, while Archbishop, approved the placement of the molester priest into therapy but did not know about that priest's subsequent reassignment. If Pope Benedict while Archbishop had approved the reassignment of a child molester, that would have been a grave error in judgment with serious consequences now. However, the consequences for him and the papacy would be far more severe if while Pope he allowed the Vatican to make an untrue statement about his involvement. I would presume that before the Vatican stated this Pope Benedict had determined after careful consideration that it was true. If there were any chance that it was untrue, it would not make sense for the Vatican to say it wholly aside from the fact that it would be wrong to not tell the truth.

David

Read this excellent article by David Quinn today.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-the-church-should-resist-mood-for-a-wider-inquiry-2104179.html

In Ireland last week we were all informed by the media that Cardinal Brady had kept this secret but that finally at long last in 2010 a newspaper had exclusively obtained this damaging information. Only a few days ago it was revealed that the police also knew but the story got little play.

Norman

Bishop Heinrich Graf von Soden-Fraunhofen was one of three auxiliary bishops in Munich. What was his role in administration. This needs to be answered because you can be sure that

["Though he said he had spoken with several senior church officials, Dr. Huth’s main contact at the time was a bishop, Heinrich Graf von Soden-Fraunhofen"]

the Times reporter will talk to the other "senior church officials" in the case in very short order. We need clarity and the Vatican press office should get on the ball.

Norman

" The Vatican has stated flatly that Pope Benedict, while Archbishop, approved the placement of the molester priest into therapy but did not know about that priest's subsequent reassignment."

The picture that is emerging is of Benedict as a hands off administrator in one of the largest, most chaotic and most difficult to administer archdiocese's in the world.

And yet

"The psychiatrist said that he issued written reports - to whom and where are they? Did not the archbishop wish to know how the therapy for Fr H was proceeding? There is too much innuendo and speculation - a plain statement of the facts of the matter needs to be made. I think it is time that the pope issued a statement about this matter stating plainly - with dates - what he said and did about this matter."

The Church can not expect fair treatment from the media in this case. The work of NY Times reporter, in particular, has been long on innuendo and short on specifics or context. One gets the impression that he has been sent to Germany not to cover the broad story about sexual abuse there, but to focus narrowly on BXVI's term in Munich and take down the Pope. Expect a long and poisonous report from the Times on Sunday.

The Church must be more aggressive in supplying context and clarifying facts, even if that means admitting that the Pope was a lousy administrator fresh off an academic assignment who was not prepared to deal with the complexities of managing an archdiocese as complicated as Munich, an archdiocese that in the best of times requires 3 auxiliary bishops to administer in addition to the sitting bishop.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad