A particularly interesting aspect of the German story is that the Pope's older brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, was Choirmaster at Regensburg Cathedral and at the Choir School, where there was a great deal of ongoing abuse
Brutality and our own fear were pervasive. Tortures included beatings with willow branches on the fingertips or the backside, punches to the head, pulling pupils up by their hair and hitting them with books. It didn't take long to beat the childhood right out of us; I often felt like I was on the verge of dying. Once my homeroom teacher hurled me with such force against the blackboard that I lost consciousness.

In 1971, when [Georg] Ratzinger had already been the choir director for seven years, a local priest was sentenced to 11 months in prison for sexual abuse. The man in question was both the institution's music prefect and the head of the boarding school. Georg Ratzinger had an apartment in the building that housed the Domspatzen, and his brother Joseph often visited him there.

Between 1969 and 1977 Joseph Ratzinger taught theology at the University of Regensburg, before being appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1977.

I presume the argument would be something along the lines of it not being up to the church to do the job of the Gardai, which is fair enough as it goes. But clearly, if the Church investigated and found there was a case to answer, at that point there is clearly no reason for them not to report it to the Guards. I suppose it was the nature of Ireland back in the day that these things would be reported to the Church and not the civil authorities, but even so I can't help thinking that An Garda Siochana must have been almost as negligent as the Church itself.
As I understand it, Archbishop Brady's argument seems to be that since he was merely an observer to the meeting, in his capacity as secretary, that he had no authority at the meeting and therefore he did not collude in any cover-up, however the fact is he was party to the cover up and given his statement in December, he has to resign. Whether the same argument applies to the Pope is another matter. In my opinion, it looks like he delegated the case back in the 1970s, and so probably didn't have much direct knowledge or input into it, so to me it boils down to what extent a person in a hierarchy is responsible for the actions of those under his (I will say his not his/her as this is the Catholic Church we are talking about...) authority.

You're a single issue troll, aren't you, Calvert W?

they knew that the priest was a rapist because they were giving him therapy, and raping children was a crime back in the the 70's

Steady on, TMK. Do we know he's a rapist. Not all abuse included rape. In SA a priest is on trial for what the prosecution — not the most likely source of euphemism — calls "cuddling up" to the victim.

The guy in Munich got a fairly light sentence for the crime he was convicted of in the '80s. Isn't it possible that the crime was not rape (not that I'm downplaying the effects of all other forms of abuse, including |cuddling up").

Wyatt, your sarcasm is misplaced. The scandal is not so much that the RCC failed to mete out punishment to reported abusers, but that priests who committed abuses were being put back into circulation. In this instance, Ratzinger took the guy out of circulation. In as far as that is concerned, he did the correct thing.

The question here is why Ratzinger did not report the allegations to the police. Were there good reasons for not doing so? Or was not reporting it part of a deliberate cover-up to protect the reputation of the Church and its hierarchy?

Nefertiti, I can't see a connection here. Are you saying that you would be culpable for your brother's rumoured transgressions?

Common sense post by henry, by the way.

G.Man wrote:
Wyatt, your sarcasm is misplaced.

Why?

G.Man wrote:
You're a single issue troll, aren't you, Calvert W?

I'll take that any day over being a mealy-mouthed cunt.

Yes, it'd be unfair to call you mealy-mouthed.

Regensburg is a town of 130000 people which as I'm sure you are aware is dominated by the Cathedral and the University, which are not entirely separate institutions. One would hope that a Catholic Priest, teaching at the University in a given town, whose brother is a Catholic Priest running the cathedral choir where he regularly attends service in the same town to be aware when sexual abuse occurs in that institution and the perpetrator is sent to prison.

As Joseph Ratzinger has said
“since the beginning of my life, my brother has not only been a companion, but also a trustworthy guide with the clarity and determination of his decisions. He always has shown me the path to take, including in difficult situations."

The Holy Father recalled the years he lived in Regensburg, where his brother was the cathedral choir director for 30 years. “The Sunday music offered me comfort, consolation, and a reflection of the beauty of God" the Pontiff recalled.

At the very least it's what I believe is called a "sin of omission".

Maybe he just took it for granted. I mean, it seems to have been fairly normal in Catholic and Jesuit instituitions in Germany - as in Ireland, and the United States of America.

I presume the argument would be something along the lines of it not being up to the church to do the job of the Gardai, which is fair enough as it goes. But clearly, if the Church investigated and found there was a case to answer, at that point there is clearly no reason for them not to report it to the Guards.

that would perhaps be fine if the church wasn't insisting that people come to them first, and then swearing witnesses to secrecy. You can't be blaming the police when the cardinal is guilty of a prima facie case of perverting the course of justice. The church in ireland held itself to be above the civil law well into the 1990's, and it would appear that many of them still believe that.

Also it has to be pointed out that the first time brendan smyth was moved because of his terrible prediliction to rape was in 1948. 19 fucking 48.

As I understand it, Archbishop Brady's argument seems to be that since he was merely an observer to the meeting, in his capacity as secretary, that he had no authority at the meeting and therefore he did not collude in any cover-up,

hmm, he was the only one to interview the second time around, and he was the one who got the children to swear an oath of secrecy. I don't think he can minimalize his involvement in that fashion. He was more than a note taker.

Whether the same argument applies to the Pope is another matter

This pope wouldn't resign if you had a picture of him sodomizing a child. And in rome he can hide away from everything. He's above everything. Brady on the other hand is on every news bulletin, and just can't really hide here.

In my opinion, it looks like he delegated the case back in the 1970s, and so probably didn't have much direct knowledge or input into it, so to me it boils down to what extent a person in a hierarchy is responsible for the actions of those under his (I will say his not his/her as this is the Catholic Church we are talking about...) authority

You can't on the one hand make priests swear an oath of obedience to their superiors, and then not be responsible when your underling does something.

Steady on, TMK. Do we know he's a rapist. Not all abuse included rape. In SA a priest is on trial for what the prosecution — not the most likely source of euphemism — calls "cuddling up" to the victim.

The definition of rape is very broad though. it's basically any coerced form of sexual contact. ultimately ratzinger was fully aware that this priest was a sexual predator who abused children, and was receiving 'therapy' far away from the scene of his crimes. He was perfectly happy to help him avoid falling into the hands of the law. fuck him. he's as bad as any of the others.

The guy in Munich got a fairly light sentence for the crime he was convicted of in the '80s. Isn't it possible that the crime was not rape

I don't think you can infer the seriousness of a sexual offence from the length of a sentence, particularly when you go back a couple of years.

Oh dear. It appears that all of these allegations against sean brady because one of the two children that Brady interviewed and swore to secrecy, has decided to sue the church over what brendan smyth did to her.

Now one of the things that brady has said is that he believed both those children that day. Which sits very fucking poorly with the fact that the church has been fighting against this court case for 13 years, and has refused to fully comply with discovery orders.

They are unbelievable.

Brady's position is now untenable.

Wyatt, when you respond to my explanatory post with "Why", you are making a great gag in reference to my earlier post in which I stated my concern that this might become the kind of thread where I have to repeat myself ad nauseam, right? I'm never quite sure when you're joking.

The scandal is not so much that the RCC failed to mete out punishment to reported abusers, but that priests who committed abuses were being put back into circulation.

I can't help feeling you haven't quite got this yet, G-man.

Certainly, sending child-raping priests out to rape more children is a part of the scandal, yes. I'd have to say, though, that child-raping priests are a bit on the scandalous side already. And not reporting child-raping priests to the police, that's also scandalous. As is thinking that the way to deal with child-raping priests is to give them a new job, where they probably won't see quite so many children.

Denying the fact of child-raping priests, in the general and the specific, that's scandalous too. Forging dodgy deals to limit your liability for the actions of your child-raping priests, that's also scandalous.

Have I forgotten anything?

Edited for testiness.

No, I wasn't joking; I don't see this as comedy material.

Tonton, everything that you list is covered by thinking that you think it's ok to put priests back into circulation rather than jail.

Not mentioning that you knew about fr brendan smyth is an incredible fucking omission, and I can't believe that brady thought that he was going to get away with that.

The Mighty Kubelgog!!! wrote:
[quote]I presume the argument would be something along the lines of it not being up to the church to do the job of the Gardai, which is fair enough as it goes. But clearly, if the Church investigated and found there was a case to answer, at that point there is clearly no reason for them not to report it to the Guards.

that would perhaps be fine if the church wasn't insisting that people come to them first, and then swearing witnesses to secrecy. You can't be blaming the police when the cardinal is guilty of a prima facie case of perverting the course of justice. The church in ireland held itself to be above the civil law well into the 1990's, and it would appear that many of them still believe that.

Um, I'm not blaming the police, or at least not exclusively. Actually I was trying to sum up the Church's position, which you clearly don't agree with. In fact, I think you have quoted me a little selectively, I said before that Brady has to go. The Church's argument, I think, is that they were conducting an investigation under Canon Law, and any Civil Law process is nothing to do with them. Of course, and this is undeniable, it should have been obvious from their investigation what was going on, and the matter reported, which they failed to do.

As I understand it, Archbishop Brady's argument seems to be that since he was merely an observer to the meeting, in his capacity as secretary, that he had no authority at the meeting and therefore he did not collude in any cover-up,

hmm, he was the only one to interview the second time around, and he was the one who got the children to swear an oath of secrecy. I don't think he can minimalize his involvement in that fashion. He was more than a note taker.

Exactly. As I said in my previous post. I wrote 'Archbishop Brady's argument...' NOT mine.

Whether the same argument applies to the Pope is another matter

This pope wouldn't resign if you had a picture of him sodomizing a child. And in rome he can hide away from everything. He's above everything. Brady on the other hand is on every news bulletin, and just can't really hide here.

That is a matter of opinion, and is a purely hypothetical and irrelevant question anyway.

In my opinion, it looks like he delegated the case back in the 1970s, and so probably didn't have much direct knowledge or input into it, so to me it boils down to what extent a person in a hierarchy is responsible for the actions of those under his (I will say his not his/her as this is the Catholic Church we are talking about...) authority

You can't on the one hand make priests swear an oath of obedience to their superiors, and then not be responsible when your underling does something.

So you suggest that anyone in a position of authority anywhere should be responsible for any action taking by any of their underlings?

Steady on, TMK. Do we know he's a rapist. Not all abuse included rape. In SA a priest is on trial for what the prosecution — not the most likely source of euphemism — calls "cuddling up" to the victim.

The definition of rape is very broad though. it's basically any coerced form of sexual contact. ultimately ratzinger was fully aware that this priest was a sexual predator who abused children, and was receiving 'therapy' far away from the scene of his crimes. He was perfectly happy to help him avoid falling into the hands of the law. fuck him. he's as bad as any of the others.

Actually, the legal definition of rape specifically mentions penetration. Not such a broad definition.

No, I wasn't joking; I don't see this as comedy material.

In that case don't ask "why" when I have already explained why your sarcasm in response to what I write was misplaced, but explain why you thought post — which not even hinted at the idea that pulling an abusive priest out of circulation was appropriate punishment — warranted one of your typically dismissive responses.

Ton Ton, you are making precisely the point I've been making, except in more words. I used the term "cover-up" as a catch-all for everything you describe. I think I very much do "get it".

Obviously the fact of the abuse is a scandal (and given the particular position and nature of the priesthood, probably more scandalous than most kinds of sexual abuse of minors). But the public anger — among many Catholics as well — centres on those who by their actions and omissions facilitated these abuses.

This is what the Vatican is singularly failing to get, and this is what many who comment on the scandal fail to get.

I don't understand your explanation, and that's why I asked "Why?" Your reply was, if I read you right (and I'm not sure I do), that the "scandal" was only, or mainly, that priests were being put back into circulation, and not that they were going unpunished. Well, that's not an "explanation", that's your say-so.

I wasn't commenting on appropriate punishment, but on the procedures Joseph Ratzinger followed. My argument was that he did the correct thing in removing the priest from ministry, and that further questions regarding Ratzinger's conduct required more information. What I referred to was a matter of procedure, not of punishment. Therefore I felt your sarcastic response ascribed to me a position I did not state.


I don't think I said the lack punishment was not a scandal; I said the facilitation of the abusers' recidivism was the greater scandal (I suppose the understanding of the phrase "...not so much as..." is subjective). I do think that on that, I'm in agreement with abuse survivors' organisations.

G-Man, I take the point about priestly celibacy contributing to this in a different way from how you seem to be taking it. If I understand you correctly, you are taking the point to be that celibacy in itself can make men more likely to commit sexual abuse - that the lifestyle imposed by priestly celibacy can affect priests in such a way as to turn them into child abusers - and if that was indeed the point being made then I'd be as sceptical of it as you are.

However, it's a different point that's being made, I think, and it's this: a strong desire for sex is so primal and so ingrained in the vast majority of men that any job which requires celibacy is going to attract applicants who are completely untypical of the population as a whole. Some of these may be men with unusually low sex drives (and obviously who are also sufficiently devout), which is fine, obviously, and some of these may be men who are so devout that their sense of duty and devotion to the church is sufficiently great as to overwhelm any carnal desires they may have - which is also fine. However, the argument is that the celibacy requirement may also specifically attract men who have very troubling sexual urges (such as paedophilia) that they wish to suppress - particularly, perhaps, men in close-knit Catholic communities where the social expectation is either that you get married or join the priesthood - to these men joining the church may seem like a good way of becoming a respectable member of society while also giving the opportunity to bury completely one's disturbing sexuality. Of course, men, being men, are often weak and it will often turn out that burying your sexuality isn't just a simple matter of taking a vow of celibacy - and that's why so many scandals happen. Completely unintentionally (although not exactly unpredictably, I'd say) the priestly vow of celibacy leads to people with very deviant sexual impulses signing up.

And, of course, once you have a system in place which protects child abusers from the law, this protection will become apparent to anyone who comes through the system. So anyone with predatory paedophilic inclinations who was educated in, say, a Christian Brothers institution will know from their own experience that joining the priesthood is a fine way to gain easy access to their prey, and a fine way to be able to do pretty much whatever they like with total impunity.

So the argument is that scrapping the celibacy restricitions and allowing priests to marry and have children will mean that the priesthood's composition is far less skewed towards potential child-abusers and people of abnormal sexual tendencies.

G.Man wrote:
My argument was that he did the correct thing in removing the priest from ministry...

Yeah, G-Man, listen: the thing is, I massively disagree with the claim that the Ratz did the right thing. I'm clear that it's your view, but it's not mine. He ought to have had the bloke punished. (In my view, like.) So while you may find my "sarcasm" annoying, I can't see that you can say it's misplaced. It's placed exactly right.

What do people actually want to see happen about all this? The Pope abdicating? (Is that possible?) The Pope being charged with being an accessory to abuse and perversion of justice? The closure of the Catholic church? I'm always fascinated by these threads because TMK & GMan can argue forever and ever and ever about the details of something that happened and that's fine but I would really like to know what they both think should happen *now*.

Hof's post makes an awful lot of sense.