# Pope and even more troubling child sex abuse cases



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

i understand that pope's serve until death but could this get so bad that benedict breaks tradition and leaves early?

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7075237.ece



> The sex abuse scandal enveloping the Catholic Church has moved still closer to Pope Benedict XVI with revelations today that in the 1990s the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger failed to defrock an American priest who molested hundreds of deaf boys, despite receiving letters from a number of American bishops pleading with him to act on the matter.
> 
> Internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Ratzinger, warning him and other top Vatican officials that failure to act could embarrass the church, have been unearthed as part of a lawsuit, according to The New York Times.
> 
> The case, against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involves the Reverend Lawrence Murphy who worked at the St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, from 1950 to 1974, starting as a teacher and rising to become the school's director. He allegedly molested up to 200 pupils, preying on his victims in their dormitories, on class excursions and even at his mother's country house.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

a4audi08 said:


> i understand that pope's serve until death but could this get so bad that benedict breaks tradition and leaves early?
> 
> https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7075237.ece


Sorry, distracted there by the image of what initially looks like Miss Monroe with her tits out! Until you enlarge and see that it is a very revealing dress.

Serious again: As a Catholic this kind of thing has always sickened me. And like most other Catholics, I will be the first to attack the Church's record regarding failure to act against criminal priests when the evidence has been presented. It's disgusting.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Is there any sort of impeachment process the Church might use, to address such egregious lapses of judgement in the exercise of the Pope's earlier responsibilities? In showing such leniency and forgiveness towards Father (and I use that title loosely!) Murphy, what message was the then Cardinal Ratzinger, sending to Murphy's child victims(!)? Seems to me the Pope turned a rather calloused heart towards those poor souls!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Though I'm not 100 percent certain about this, I believe the Pope cannot be impeached or resign. It's sickening that, if proven to be true, the Pope had a hand in letting the abuse continue...and the guilty go unpunished. There's also the stink of hypocrisy hanging over this mess; considering how hard The Vatican came down on the Catholic church in the U.S. after its sex scandals came to light.

I am quite sure the picture The Times chose of the Pope wasn't an accident. Unflattering bordering on evil.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

No Eagle unfortunately not, because don't forget the Pope is allegedly infallible and cannot by any means be removed. A Pope is Pope until death.


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

The pope cannot be impeached, nor forced to resign - he answers only to God. That said, there's *ample* historical precedent for popes being deposed, and on four prior occasions the pope has resigned.

The resignations:
Benedict IX, for pay

Gregory VI, for having paid Benedict IX (note: re-elected after the death of his successor, Clement II.

Celestine V, for obscure reasons and who also cemented the pope's ability to resign, via papal decree

Gregory XII, to end the Western Schism, who convened a council to elect a single successor, and who's probably the only pope to have resigned for good reasons)

That having said, the church's response to the molestation scandals has been in itself scandalous. While I appreciate the difficulties faced by an organization based on the unconditional forgiveness of sins in handling this sort of issue, you can forgive a man his sins while at the same time punishing him or at _least_ not pretending there's nothing to see here.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
But where and when does the Church's concern for the flock come in to play?


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

I would think it would depend on each individual church. I know ours had confessions out in the open. Parents sat in the church area, while watching our children go up to each priest, confess (way on the other side, all in the open) and then walk back to us. We can't hear, but we can see. 

Our church has worked to acknowledge the parents worries. I do think priests should go to trial. We lost a favorite priest because he was getting up in his 50's, had a friendship with a woman (not one I personally would consider material) but left the priesthood to marry and have children. He loved what he did, and this decision was was so very hard for him. I wish priest could be allowed to marry or have a partner openly of their choice. I also think it could make them better at their jobs with understanding their congregation.


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No Eagle unfortunately not, because don't forget the Pope is allegedly infallible and cannot by any means be removed. A Pope is Pope until death.


It's correct that only God removes the pope (legally anyhow), usually by just letting him die. It's a tidy system that has served mankind well for untold generations (death I mean, not necessarily popes).

However, infallibility only applies to teachings of the extraordinary magisterium and is actually quite rare. For example, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, those were instances of infallibility, as were some early things such as Leo I's discussion of the two natures of Christ and at least one recent one - John Paul II's letter that reserved priestly ordination to men alone, etc. There are probably somewhere around 15ish instances of formally infallible pronouncements.


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

Padme said:


> I wish priest could be allowed to marry or have a partner openly of their choice. I also think it could make them better at their jobs with understanding their congregation.


The counterargument to this is, of course, that via enforced celibacy, the priest remains a neutral party in any mediation or counselling efforts - he's not a husband, so he's less likely to take the husband's side, etc.

That having been said, while priestly celibacy isn't really a new item of church policy, nor is it particularly old - it wasn't until about the 11th century that the church hierarchy chose to require priests to remain unmarried, mostly for administrative reasons. 1) married priests tended to leave their property to their children, and the church considered the actual church buildings, etc. to be church property and 2) sons took on their fathers' jobs, and the church wanted to control who was and who was not a priest through ordination, and not have it turn into a family business.

The Catholic Church certainly recognizes the marriages of Orthodox priests as valid, nor does it deny the priestly status of the Orthodox clergy. Additionally, married Roman Catholic priests, while rare, do exist. There are typically two ways to become a married Roman priest:

1) A married Anglican priest who convinces his local Roman bishop that he has a true vocation to convert back to Catholicism can do so, and since he's already married, and the Church isn't about to annul or divorce him, then he becomes a married Catholic priest. This will become more common as dissatisfaction with the liberality of the Anglican church increases, as the Earl has discussed elsewhere. This doesn't apply to bishops, if you're a married bishop, you're stuck in Anglicanism until your wife dies. At least two very prominent Catholic bishops of the Victorian period started as married Anglican priests (Manning, Newman)

2) A priest of an Eastern Rite Catholic church who is ordained in the home territory of that Eastern Rite church may marry, and if he choses to switch later to the Latin Rite, he may do so. Of course he stays married.

For my part, I see no reason to continue clerical celibacy other than a devotion to tradition. Tradition is of course very important to the Catholic Church, but she's changed her traditions before and will do so again. I'd be fine with a married clergy, though many would not.

I'm also not particularly devout - I approach these things more from a strong interest in the operations of complex hierarchical systems, of which the Catholic Church's administration, the relationships of the various Orthodox churches and the old Byzantine bureaucracy are some of the world's finest examples.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

Hello, Padme,

One quick question, please. If this is up to individual churches, what is the point of the ponderous heirarchy in place in the Catholic church? How does one decide what is up to the local Christians and what is up to the Vatican?


----------



## sko (Jul 1, 2009)

Slate.com had a brief article on just this topic. An interesting read...

https://www.slate.com/id/2247262/


----------



## Padme (Aug 18, 2009)

PetroLandman said:


> Hello, Padme,
> 
> One quick question, please. If this is up to individual churches, what is the point of the ponderous heirarchy in place in the Catholic church? How does one decide what is up to the local Christians and what is up to the Vatican?


According to my husband, there are rules the Vatican has that the church has to follow. Then there are traditional Catholic churches and mission Catholic churches. Ours is a mission church, and we follow the Fort Worth Diocese. Local churches can have some leeway in how they worship according the congregation.

https://stphilipcc.org/

Drive up and visit.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36048041/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

uh oh



> The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church's hierarchy. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
> An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber.
> 
> But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest's reassignment.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Padme said:


> Then there are traditional Catholic churches and mission Catholic churches. Ours is a mission church, and we follow the Fort Worth Diocese. Local churches can have some leeway in how they worship according the congregation.


That's more than I'm aware of. I think you'll find that the Vatican won't agree with that understaniding of the situation. 
"Traditional Catholic churches and mission Catholic churches" ??? I've never heard of this differentiation.

You (any given RC church) are either in communion theologically with the Vatican or you're not. And if you're not then you're not a Roman Catholic church. That is my understanding, perhaps oversimplified, perhaps even wrong, but that's how I understand it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

*Proud*

Could I just say, as a Catholic, how pleased and proud I am at the civil way the members here have discussed this very sensitive and emotive issue.

Thank you and well done.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's more than I'm aware of. I think you'll find that the Vatican won't agree with that understaniding of the situation.
> "Traditional Catholic churches and mission Catholic churches" ??? I've never heard of this differentiation.
> 
> You (any given RC church) are either in communion theologically with the Vatican or you're not. And if you're not then you're not a Roman Catholic church. That is my understanding, perhaps oversimplified, perhaps even wrong, but that's how I understand it.


I suspect the intended distinction is between churches that are parishes of a diocese or archdiocese, in which case they operated directly under the authority of the bishop or archbishop, and churches that are operated by a religious order, in which case they do not operate under the direct authority of the local bishop as such, although operate only under his consent. Of course, there are also hybrids where an order of priests is granted permission to staff a parish church. A "mission" church is another thing altogether. These are new churches established by an existing parish to serve a previously underserved geographical area, and such missions are supported by the establishing parish until they are self-supporting at which time the governing bishop will typically grant them independent parish status.


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's more than I'm aware of. I think you'll find that the Vatican won't agree with that understaniding of the situation.
> "Traditional Catholic churches and mission Catholic churches" ??? I've never heard of this differentiation.
> 
> You (any given RC church) are either in communion theologically with the Vatican or you're not. And if you're not then you're not a Roman Catholic church. That is my understanding, perhaps oversimplified, perhaps even wrong, but that's how I understand it.


Well, there are groups that call themselves Traditionalist Catholic churches, such as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The relationship between the SSPX and the main Catholic church because ah.. strained.. in 1988 when Marcel Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without papal approval. In fact, the Pope specifically ordered him not to do it. As ordination confers an indelible stamp of character and can be performed validly without permission (i.e., a bishop can ordain, it's part of the fiber of his being, and orders from the pope are a formality that may influence his actions, but cannot actually constrain them), those 4 men became bishops. All five, plus Lefebvre's co-celebrant at the ordinations whose name escapes me, were deemed to have incurred automatic excommunication for having engaged in these ordinations in direct violation of the orders of the boss.

The order's status today remains murky - some theorists consider the SSPX to be schismatic, others do not. The four excommunications were lifted by the current pope, the culmination of many years of negotiations and discussion, but immediately became controversial when Richard Williamson's various ridiculous statements about Jews became more publicly known. Efforts to bring the order back into full harmony with the main church remain ongoing.

If memory serves me, there's at least one member of the SSPX here on the boards - I think I've provided a fairly balanced summary of the issues between it and the rest of the RCC, so I hope he wasn't offended. I won't apologize for calling Williamson ridiculous, though, as I think he's an ass, bishop or no.

That's just one example of a so-called Traditionalist Catholic movement, there are a few others. Most enjoy the permission of the Vatican to use the older forms, so long as they're willing to concede that the newer, post Vatican II stuff is legitimate. Others, like the sedevacantist organizations (Society of St. Pius V etc) consider that there hasn't been a pope since 1958, when Pius XII died, since all those so-called popes since then have been modernist heretics, etc. The sedevacantist movements are less popular with Rome, but do have priests and bishops and such.

The SSPX seems to be walking the fine line between flouting Vatican authority and outright separation. They tend to consider that the popes are popes, they're just wrong. Their authority is valid, but isn't being used correctly, etc. I was a bit surprised when Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the four bishops - he'd brokered the deal that would have let Lefebvre ordain a single bishop to carry on his work, the very deal that Lefebvre broke. I'd have thought he'd have been more pissed about it, but I suppose they did let Lefebvre die excommunicate.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

it's disgusting that this abuse has continued for so long....I think that the Catholic Church would not have these problems if they would allow priests to marry and have children like Protestants do


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Personally I hope Ratzinger resigns.

Bring Pelagius back and make him pope. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Bermuda said:


> it's disgusting that this abuse has continued for so long....I think that the Catholic Church would not have these problems if they would allow priests to marry and have children like Protestants do


The problem with this hypothesis is that the incidence of abuse is no better among other demominations. Look it up.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Personally I hope Ratzinger resigns.
> 
> Bring Pelagius back and make him pope. :icon_smile_big:


A Brit to the rescue eh :icon_smile_wink:

Seriously though - the doctine of the infallibility of the Pope is a pretty modern doctrine ( 19th C ?) and doesn't serve the church well.

And the problem for the RC Church is that the whole church is tarnished by this terrible episode in her history because it is the very heirarchical nature of the church and her relationship to power that has given rise to this culture of sweeping things under the carpet, moving evil and criminal priests on and it being very very difficult for whistle blowers.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Leather man said:


> A Brit to the rescue eh :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Seriously though - the doctine of the infallibility of the Pope is a pretty modern doctrine ( 19th C ?) and doesn't serve the church well.


That and several other bizarre (IMO) modern RCC doctrines, everything from the immaculate conception to purgatory were the result of this "original sin" stuff.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bermuda said:


> it's disgusting that this abuse has continued for so long....I think that the Catholic Church would not have these problems if they would allow priests to marry and have children like Protestants do


I really don't think that the prohibition against Catholic Priests marrying is the real problem. I think the problem is the culture of secrecy that seems to be invading so many aspects of our lives these days. As has been observed by others in this thread, Catholic clergy are not the only leaders of local congregations that have violated the trust and legal(?) rights of their younger parishioners, in such a heinous fashion. I recall reading (several years back) of (I think it was) a Presbyterian minister who was charged, convicted and imprisoned for similar acts against children. As I recall, the affair was handled pretty openly and eventually by law enforcement and the courts, as it should have been.

So many similar past incidents in the Catholic Church were handled in relative secrecy, behind closed doors, with institutionally embarrassing facts being swept under the rug, parishioners kept in the dark and the offending priests quietly moved to other parishes, where they might prey again on a whole new crop of young victims! Catholic priests are no more inclined toward pedophilia than members of any other group that we might choose to (arbitrarily) define but, the protected environment created by the manner in which the church handled these incidents, has allowed these (so called) men of the cloth to prey and prey again! This is where the Catholic Church's greatest embarrassment lies!

We see this same culture of secrecy and back door discussions and operations taking over our political establishments...and that isn't working very well for us either!


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

I agree with eagle2250 - I doubt very much if Catholic priests are any more inclined toward child abuse than any other group, but Catholic bishops seem rather more inclined to institutional cowardice, unfortunately.

Their attempt to defend the putative honor of the Church has, obviously, resulted in a huge loss of that same honor in the long run. Whodathunkit? Anyone who actually _thought_ about what they were doing, actually.

In America's case, the late pope make a mistake in allowing Law to resign as Archbishop of Boston, he should have been removed from the post. It would have sent a much stronger signal - heck, he could have done it in collusion with Law himself. Law should have been willing to take one for team, so to speak.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*dearie me*



Earl of Ormonde said:


> No Eagle unfortunately not, because don't forget the Pope is allegedly infallible and cannot by any means be removed. A Pope is Pope until death.


No, no, no. The Pope is only infallible on pronouncements made 'ex cathedra,' which are doctrinal and by virtue of being flagged as 'ex cathedra' they are identified as being the infallible kind. Mr Google can verify this. He is not infallible on selecting the luncheon menu, on upcoming political races, stock picks and the Kentucky Derby.

Now, is anybody - anybody - pleased at the paedophile problems and what the church is doing about it? Nobody, or nobody who will admit it. I do know some anti-clerical types who cannot keep from smiling as they wring their hands.

Lastly, if any of you believe, for one moment, that all this malarkey about papal resignations running through the penny-dreadfuls will derail a 2,000 year old institution that has more than one billion members, think again but only if you thought the first time.

nor will a 2000-year old institution turn on a dime over celibacy for priests or ordaining women or, for that matter, procuring Holy Communion from Subway. An institution so ancient has an institutional memory to match, and they will not rapidly fall prey to what may indeed be a passing fancy. Had they done so, the Church would be much stranger than it is today. this has its advantages and perhaps disadvantages, but it is a long-established fact.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

turban1 said:


> No, no, no. The Pope is only infallible on pronouncements made 'ex cathedra,' which are doctrinal and by virtue of being flagged as 'ex cathedra' they are identified as being the infallible kind. Mr Google can verify this. He is not infallible on selecting the luncheon menu, on upcoming political races, stock picks and the Kentucky Derby.
> 
> Now, is anybody - anybody - pleased at the paedophile problems and what the church is doing about it? Nobody, or nobody who will admit it. I do know some anti-clerical types who cannot keep from smiling as they wring their hands.
> 
> ...


Correct. The pope can be mistaken, particularly on matters that not related to faith and morals, and he certainly can sin. This is basic Church teaching.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

turban1 said:


> No, no, no. The Pope is only infallible on pronouncements made 'ex cathedra,' which are doctrinal and by virtue of being flagged as 'ex cathedra' they are identified as being the infallible kind. Mr Google can verify this. He is not infallible on selecting the luncheon menu, on upcoming political races, stock picks and the Kentucky Derby.
> 
> Now, is anybody - anybody - pleased at the paedophile problems and what the church is doing about it? Nobody, or nobody who will admit it. I do know some anti-clerical types who cannot keep from smiling as they wring their hands.
> 
> ...


A correction, the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a 2000 year old institution. The CHURCH is.

RCs often say this kind of thing and it is unfair ,even insulting to at least the Orthodox but in fact to all Christians.

That being said, yes of course those who are hoping for the downfall of the RC and the church in general ( and I agree there are those who do hope this will finally finish us off) are naiive. At the same time the church is naiive if it thinks this will all just blow over. We haven't faced a crisis like this for a loooong time, and it is one of our own making. We have been more concerned about ourselves and not the victims/survivours of abuse at the hand of some very wicked priests.

There is a kind of hyprocisy in the newpapers too though ( as well as most certainly in the church). Teachers and Doctors are also not immune from being child abusers and there are plenty of cases. Nor are their professions exactly innoncent from cover - up. Historically most professions have covered up rather than had their reputation mudied. Yet we never saw headlines saying " What now for the future of schools" or " Can your doctor ever be trusted"?

So yes, this terrible situtation ( terrible for the children I mean) feeds right into the hands of the agressive, fundamentalist secularists.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Catholic... and the Pope*



Merganser said:


> The pope cannot be impeached, nor forced to resign - *he answers only to God*.


Wow, how does that work


----------



## Merganser (Mar 17, 2010)

lovemeparis said:


> Wow, how does that work


Well, it means that the pope can resign or he can die. He can't be removed from office. As I mentioned above, papal resignation has been rare, and has usually been for political reasons (simony, to heal a schism) and once for personal reasons, and it hasn't happened since 1415. It's still _possible_, legally. Very unlikely, though.

As for answering to God - well, that's what religious people tend to think, that they answer to their god(s). Once installed as pope, the college of cardinals has no authority to constrain him in any way. If he wants to resign, he just says so. If he doesn't want to resign, the world's stuck with him. Given that no human agency can legally force his actions, that leaves God. Sure, the pope could be leaned on, influenced, or even assassinated - but he can't be forced through law without his agreement.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

India Knight's excellent piece in the Sunday Times pretty much sums up how I feel about this situation....

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article7078888.ece


----------

