« No changes for now | Main | The Pope and War »
April 21, 2005
Pope focused on scandal
"I went up to him after he was elected, we kiss his hand, and I started speaking in my kind of halting German about promising obedience and love and asking for his prayers in return," George said Wednesday. "And he immediately responded in English -- much better English than I speak German -- that he remembered our conversation and that he would attend to that. So immediately he zeroed in on our last conversation, which was about the sexual abuse scandal."
Not long before the 115 cardinals entered the conclave to elect a new pope on Monday, George said he had had a conversation with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about the sexual abuse scandal, the new laws that were instated several years ago governing the handling of such cases by the church in the United States, and, as he put it, "the need to maintain the canonical structures that we have used to address the scandal."
The new church laws, which require, among other things, that any Catholic clergyman with even one legitimate accusation of sexual abuse against him be removed from ministry, have to be renewed on a yearly basis.
"I wanted to be sure that I could respond to any questions he might have," George said. "We had a good conversation about that and he understood the need to do that, and he understood where we were coming from. He had followed the discussions by reading the minutes, not by being present, and had a good grasp of the situation. It was a very reassuring conversation."
Chicago's cardinal said he hoped news of the new pope's apparent keen awareness of the significance of the clergy sex abuse scandal to the life of the American church would be reassuring to victims of abuse and their supporters.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
This is very, very encouraging.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Apr 21, 2005 8:34:03 AM
He's making a list-
And checking it twice-
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice-
B-XVI's coming to town.
He's sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake-
He knows when you commit sexual assault crimes punishable by 20 years to life in prison and ulltimately cost your diocese six-to-seven-figure settlements and besmirch the integrity of the majority of holy and dedicated priests....
So be good for goodness sake.....
Posted by: Gerard E. at Apr 21, 2005 8:49:27 AM
Bob (not Bill) Bennett indicated on Hardball the other night that the Cardinal took page after page of detailed notes during his meeting with the NRB.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Apr 21, 2005 8:53:02 AM
That is very encouraging, Grant. I was told last year by a contact in Rome that the CDF was staggered by the number of new cases that were pouring into its office from the US -- two or three new ones every single day.
The CDF is not a big office. Ratzinger knows better than anybody else how bad the situation is. I think -- I hope -- this is what was behind his Good Friday lamentation about the "filth" in the clergy.
In Kwitny's biography of John Paul, "Man of the Century," he quotes the (then) pope as telling the American bishops in the mid-1990s that he was not going to have priests removed summarily from ministry. He reportedly told them that he'd lived through that kind of mentality in communist Poland, and wasn't going to bring it into the Church. We see where John Paul's naively optimistic view of things got us. I have hope that the new pope is more realistic.
A great thing for him to do right away is to do what his predecessor never could bring himself to do: meet publicly with victims.
The Sun-Times story says that abuse victim groups were upset with Ratzinger in the past for blocking the investigation of Maciel. But in November of last year, the CDF reopened that investigation -- this just days after John Paul had publicly praised Maciel, to whom he was personally close.
It was speculated that reopening the investigation is why Maciel decided to step down in January as head of the Legionaries. The LCs denied the connection, but it's pretty clear If that's true, it suggests to me that either Cdl. Ratzinger had a change of heart, or that someone who was protecting Maciel weakened. In any case, given the papal praise and the CDF's change of heart, it's pretty clear that there was a power struggle here. I'm betting that Ratzinger is on the right side of this issue. Hope so, anyway. That is not to convict Maciel, I hasten to say, but only to say that the investigation should proceed.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Apr 21, 2005 9:00:50 AM
"We see where John Paul's naively optimistic view of things got us. I have hope that the new pope is more realistic."
What's the evidence that JPII was being "optimistic" rather than, say, "cautious" about the rights of the accused and so on?
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 21, 2005 9:09:12 AM
I love this comment from Cardinal George:
"There's a certain clarity of teaching that has been associated with him. Fine. I think clarity helps us all. If that's a problem, well then the problem isn't with this particular pope or man or his predecessor, the problem is with the Catholic faith itself and then people should ask, well, where am I? If I don't hold the Catholic faith, where does that leave me? It's a personal question."
Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Apr 21, 2005 9:12:25 AM
Put differently: See Tom's point.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 21, 2005 9:15:34 AM
I'm hugely reassured by this news, and I hope for more good news to follow.
It's been said for many years that JPII was not a very good administrator. "Spiritual" types tend to think that maybe being a good administrator is, well, one of those qualities we can do without (I've thought that myself), but that's not precisely true.
It strikes me that perhaps JPII was not uncaring for the victims of abuse (as I have accused him of here more than once) but that he simply.....wasn't a very good administrator.
Even people who don't like Pope Benedict much will have to concede that he's one of the smartest human beings who ever came off the line. If he adds to that being alert and being a good administrator, brighter days may well be ahead on this front.
Posted by: Nancy at Apr 21, 2005 9:16:54 AM
Nancy:
It strikes me that perhaps JPII was not uncaring for the victims of abuse (as I have accused him of here more than once) but that he simply.....wasn't a very good administrator.
I'm heartened to hear you say that. I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is on the issue, but it's driven me nuts that a lot of people insist that any mishandling of "The Scandal" is a result of the Pope's callousness towards children.
Hmm... On that topic, is there a better word we could come up with rather than "The Scandal" or "The Crisis." Both terms sound to me like a political problem, like embezzling funds or robbing your opponents' headquarters. I think the horror of what happened is diminished. Raping children calls for stronger language.
But "The Atrocities" might be thought a little too strong, and after all, it is true that this is a scandal and a crisis.
Posted by: Eileen R at Apr 21, 2005 9:25:07 AM
Nancy: See Tom's point.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 21, 2005 9:41:56 AM
What's the evidence that JPII was being "optimistic" rather than, say, "cautious" about the rights of the accused and so on?
Because he came up with no alternative plan, and showed no apparent willingness to hold the bishops accountable for their failure to deal with this crisis. The man is dead, so let's not waste our time rehashing this old fight. I think we can all hope that the new pope is more engaged and active on this issue than his predecessor.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Apr 21, 2005 9:44:38 AM
Talk is cheap. Let B16 prove his sincerity by getting rid of Cardinal Law, ending his cozy little sinecure, and returning him to the States for prosecution.
Remember, this is the guy who said: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower... One comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church".
So I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted by: daniel duffy at Apr 21, 2005 9:59:43 AM
Yes, Rod, you raise an interesting issue. Part of why I was surprised by his attentiveness to the sexual-abuse issue is his 2002 quote about the crisis: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.... In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1 percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type.... The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion." This was before we had the NRB and OCYP reports, and the 4-percent figure. Bennett and Anne Burke have repeatedly praised Ratzinger for the genuine concern he showed in his meetings with them in Rome (a concern Burke has said has been disturbingly absent among many U.S. bishops). It seems Ratzinger took their reports to heart, and is not in denial about the fact of clergy sexual abuse. How fascinating it would be if he was responsible for moving the church closer to reconciliation with victims, who have felt so alienated by the hierarchy.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Apr 21, 2005 10:10:31 AM
Somewhat off topic, but related to Cardinal George:
The AP is reporting that he is being considered to head the CDF.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POPE?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at Apr 21, 2005 10:16:16 AM
Ah I should have read the post below first . . .
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at Apr 21, 2005 10:20:29 AM
Grant,
I don't think there is much of a contradiction in Benedict XVI's statements. The church through its inaction on the abuse crisis handed its enemies in secular culture a sword. They have used the sword to slander the whole of the church.
But... it was a very real sword and the inaction and lack of sympathy for victims is a true scandal that hasn't been dealt with yet. All signs are that our new Pope is ready to act.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Apr 21, 2005 10:23:43 AM
Re-opening the case against Fr Maciel was a good sign. Even better would be for Pope B XVI to meet with survivors of abuse.
Meeting survivors would be important both symbolically and for his understanding of the personal damage that these atrocities cause. That damage is largely spiritual, and should speak loudly to a humble and holy man like the pope. During our meeting with the USCCB committee on abuse and with several cardinals, at least 3 of the bishops were visibly moved by the experience of listening to survivors.
Great to hear that this pope understands the importance of this situation, and praying that his actions show that as well.
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Apr 21, 2005 10:24:53 AM
My point is that this is an example of when the church needed to have "the sword" used against it--by "secular culture" or whoever. The then-cardinal's assertion that the incidence of abuse by priests was no higher than in the general population ("less than 1 percent) proved counterfactual. The statement was profoundly insensitive to the victims. But he has clearly shifted from this tone.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Apr 21, 2005 10:29:14 AM
Of course, the more disturbing implication is that in the general population, many more adults are likely implicated than 1%. In fact many studies have estimated that 25-30% of young people face some kind of sexual abuse. It would be odd if only 1% of adults were responsible for so many cases of abuse.
But minimizing the problem of sexual abuse is not my point. My point is, there are alot of people out there in need of help.
Posted by: incognito at Apr 21, 2005 10:36:13 AM
Yes, absolutely, and the church is now in a unique position to shed some light on this horror in the general population as well.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Apr 21, 2005 10:55:02 AM
Eileen writes:
Hmm... On that topic, is there a better word we could come up with rather than "The Scandal" or "The Crisis." Both terms sound to me like a political problem, like embezzling funds or robbing your opponents' headquarters. I think the horror of what happened is diminished. Raping children calls for stronger language.
The term needs a spiritual dimension. I suggest The Horror, with apologies to Joseph Conrad.
Posted by: James Freeman at Apr 21, 2005 11:01:34 AM
Eileen: I like B16's naming it 'the filth in the Church' much better than 'the scandal' or 'the crisis' - both of which seem to name something that is in a box and it sure isn't in a box.
Very heartening news... I hope and pray this will be fulfilled because I think many disaffected Catholics will re consider their present stance on the Church. Get over that big hurdle and listen to what the Church really teaches. Sometimes we can get hung up on one huge thing and it blinds us to everything else.
Posted by: Colleen at Apr 21, 2005 11:16:47 AM
Henceforth, shall we cease to call it "the Scandal," and instead, following the papal lead, call it "the Filth"?
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Apr 21, 2005 11:57:25 AM
I'm as opposed to the St. Mary Major job as anyone here, but people like Mr. Duffy and others have got to realize: THE MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITIES HAD ALREADY DECIDED NOT TO PROSECUTE LONG BEFORE CARDINAL LAW BECAME ST. MARY MAJOR'S ARCHPRIEST. Unless new evidence turns up, which is far from unthinkable, the chances of Law's seeing jail time are almost nil regardless of whether he lives in Rome or downtown Boston.
Posted by: James Kabala at Apr 21, 2005 12:03:02 PM
James: you are correct and any member of the archdiocese of Boston will back you up. In fact, Law retired to a convent on the east coast for one year before he went to Rome. The authorities could not prosecute him and most people here in Boston were calling for Law's head on a pike. If he could have been prosecuted, he would have been. Seems to me that Law couldn't just remove himself to a jail cell and all angst should be directed towards the Massachusetts DA's office.
It is unfortunate that Cardinal Law was placed in a position of some visibility (head priest of a basilica in Rome) although with no 'power' as it has agitated quite a few people. Seeing Law's countenance on television is revealing if you knew what he looked like during his tenure in Boston. He is a broken and sad man at this time, imho. I hope and pray God has as much mercy on Cardinal Law's soul as He will have on mine.
Posted by: Colleen at Apr 21, 2005 12:51:13 PM
