Email This Post
Benedict XVI Protects Pedophile Priests
In light of all the fawning over Pope Benedict XVI, I would like to remind everyone exactly how this pope feels about the sexual abuse of children and those who do the abusing: In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety. [Read more of this 2006 expose; video included]
The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.
Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the ‘enforcer’ of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.
Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.
Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.
Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: “I found out I wasn’t working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself.”
And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church’s handling of child abuse claims, says: “What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.
“When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there’s total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world.”
The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church’s relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.
The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O’Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: “What gets me is that it’s the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens.”
Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: “The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse.”
[source: DailyMail]
It’s a darn shame. I find it very doubtful that there is one single man of GOD actually residing in the Vatican. There is no way one modeling himself after Jesus Christ would encourage and allow the sexual, mental, spiritual, etc. abuse of GOD’s innocent children.
A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama. Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. And imagine, the document was written in 1962… so, yes, the Catholic Church has been looking the other way for almost half a century while its priests (and a few nuns) rape children. I am surprised all the pedophiles are just dying to become Catholic priests.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
[...] Benedict XVI Protects Pedophile Priests [...]
I feel terribly sorry for those who had to face the dramatic reality of being raped or sexually offended by a priest, or by anyone else, it goes without saying that these kind of crimes are absolutely horrible. That said, the reason why Cardinal Ratzinger issued that document requesting that every single case of pedophile priest should be judged by the Roman church, is that not every priest is a pedophile.
A very small percentage of vicars suffer from this very serious mental problem, especially if we compare this percentage with the one of normal people. Same thing with criminality, generally speaking. What I am saying is that priests are - most likely - good people.
Evil lies in the souls of many in this corrupt world, but priests have always tried their best to bring a sunbeam for those who are without hope. The sons of Christ are all over the world, risking their own lives for other people. I don’t think that this perennial struggle against poverty, ignorance and illnesses of all kinds should be overshadowed by a few very sick people who indulge in sexual assaults against children.
I wish, of course, that these priests could be found, identified and cured, if possible, if not, I wish they could be expelled from the House of God and kept away from children.
It would be wise, though, not to consider every priest as a pedophile and the Pope as a criminal. Islam instead represents the main threat to a civil society because it is a very dangerous religion, read what Mohammed said, read the Quran. Muslims from all over the world think is just and fair to stone a women to death because she committed adultery, while her husband is permitted to lie in the bed of many different wives. Muslims in Iran hang gay people, because they think it is fair. Think about it: who is the real enemy? This is the opinion of an atheist.
ANDREA L. HOLZER: I find it amazing that you would rationalize and defend Cardinal Ratzinger’s actions (and he’s probably still doing it now as the pope) in shielding GUILTY priests who have abused children.
Read the story and watch the video, Ms. Holzer. Ratzinger allowed priests who had definitely abused children to move and move and move around from church to church with new allegations cropping up everywhere they went. I am talking about those priests. The pedophiles hiding behind a collar.
Why aren’t the allegations of a child taken seriously? You speak about vicars suffering mentally from this scandal…. Lord have mercy, Mrs. Holzer, what about the kids?
And how convenient you can judge and condemn ALL OF ISLAM, which you say is ‘the main threat to civil society.” How many mosques have you walked into or Muslims have you spoken with? I am a Christian woman and I’ve shared a house with Muslim men…here in America, of course. So I can tell you, there are no Muslims running around America dragging adulterous women into the streets to be stoned. Their religion is not wrapped up in the state…as it is in these Middle Eastern countries that you are thinking of.
If we had left Iraq and Afghanistan alone (as well as Iran), no American would give a darn about ‘the plight of oppressed Islamic women.’ You wouldn’t think Islam a global threat.
I don’t agree with their so-called faith, but the everyday Muslims I encounter aren’t running around trying to kill anyone. And the Muslims that we hear about doing such things, certainly weren’t doing these things before the Iraq war (in the matter that it is happening now anyway).
But don’t worry, there will come a time when every guilty person will have to answer for his/her crime before the JUDGE of us all.
LaVrai,
I thought that a blog could be used to discuss issues with calm, Apparently this is not the case and I am sorry about it. After reading your answer, I went through my comment searching for some kind of justification for the pedophile priests: no way I could find it. I found instead: “…I feel terribly sorry for those who had to face the dramatic reality of being raped or sexually offended by a priest, or by anyone else, it goes without saying that these kind of crimes are absolutely horrible…” or: “I wish, of course, that these priests could be found, identified and cured, if possible, if not, I wish they could be expelled from the House of God and kept away from children”. It does not sound like a justification to me…
Also, after reading your answer it is clear to me that politics is not exactly your area of expertise. You asked: “How many mosques have you walked into or Muslims have you spoken with?” a question which, as it seems to me, implies some sort of statement regarding my ignorance about mosques and Muslims. Unfortunately for you, though, I was engaged with a Muslim woman as well and I traveled all over the Middle East, encountering all kinds of Muslims.
That said, it is true that Muslim people in the Us don’t go around throwing rocks at women when they commit adultery or that they don’t go around hanging gay people like they do in Tehran (have you been there?), you’re absolutely right about this. In fact they prefer to hijack a passenger plane or two and stick them in the skyscrapers around Manhattan and at the Pentagon…
Hi, Andrea.
You’re absolutely right about my accusing you of justifying the Vatican’s stance on pedophile priests. I apologize.
However, I still don’t understand why it is you believe Islam is the “main threat to civil society.” I don’t agree with everything I’ve learned about Islam, but it almost seems to me that you are making a general statement about all Muslims. The only violent Muslims I have seen (yes, as reported in news articles) seem to fit a certain stereotype.
As for Muslims preferring to “hijack a passenger plane or two and stick them into the skyscrapers around Manhattan and the Pentagon…” I think you may need to do some research if you think a handful of men could penetrate so successfully probably one of the most well guarded airspaces in the world with absolutely no assistance.
Have you bothered to ask why the government has not even released airport surveillance video showing these men going through security or whatnot? Don’t you find it curious that about 99% of these men were Saudis, yet Saudi Arabia was never questioned or investigated for any ties to terrorism? Do you really believe Osama bin Laden (who they say is still alive) is really so elusive? Are you at all concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have ever been recovered from Iraq?
I don’t blame violent, misguided evil Muslims alone for these awful acts upon innocent people. I also blame the violent and willfully wicked men who seem to have benefited the most from these atrocities.
You can hate the Muslims and Islam all you want. But I can see plainly who it is who is terrorizing the world and spewing careless threats across the globe as if they were god incarnate. I can see plainly who it is who seems responsible for the weakening of the American dollar and the economic downfall that is surely descending upon us. It’s not a bunch of mean Muslims and it isn’t anyone hiding out in a cave.
Lavrai,
I see that we can have a calm discussion, after all. You asked me why is it that I consider Islam a threat to civil society. A satisfying answer would take too long, but I can tell you that Mohammed was a warrior and the Islam is a very violent religion, in my opinion. I can point you to a video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781) and a blog by Robert Spencer: (http://jihadwatch.org/).
If you’ll have the patience to watch the video and read some of the posts by Spencer, you’ll find out where my point of view is coming from. It goes without saying: I have many Muslim friends who are NOT by any means violent and dangerous, does that proves anything though?
Regarding the other issue, namely the “American well guarded airspace” that you mentioned… Have you read “The 9/11 Commission Report” that came out in 2002? If so, you would certainly remember about how the American airports before 9/11 were by far the most unsecure in the entire world and that’s why the terrorist decided to strike exactly there. It was the only weak and vulnerable point the Us had at that time. Places in which millions of people everyday would go virtually unchecked. Are you suggesting the existence some sort of conspiracy theory to justify the World Trade Center attacks, by the way?
About the WMD not found in Iraq… many leftists seems to be concerned only about that, have they noticed, however, that Saddam Hussein’s regime was one of the bloodiest of the last century? Have you ever heard about the Al-Anfal campaign? Here’s a link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign)
If I was you, I would thank President Bush for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his regime. One last thing: I don’t hate Muslims, I am just afraid of religions- especially when they are so radical - generally speaking.
Andrea,
I was very tempted to just post your comment and just leave it at that. “If I was you, I would thank President Bush for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his regime.” Why would or should I? Saddam Hussein was no threat to me. Yes, unfortunately, the man was a tyrant to his own people. So if that is the standard, why doesn’t the U.S. topple Mugabe, Kim Jong Il and the dozens of other tyrants and dictators killing their own people either through violence or starvation? They are about as dangerous as Saddam Hussein…
And yes, I did read the 9/11 commission report. When I made mention of the air space situation, I was referring to the fact that our Air Force supposedly prides itself on how fast it can scramble jets to any location in the United States. Why were they told to stand down by Vice President Dick Cheney when they could have intercepted at least one of the planes? Why did that third building near the WTC collapse…when absolutely nothing had hit it or crashed into it? Might I also note that no plane debris was recovered from the Pentagon site? …And if you haven’t read about many of the 91// Commission board members entanglements with members of the Bush Administration… then it seems to be more evidence that it seems you believe only what is put in front of you.
Fortunately, this is my final reaction to your comments…if you persist in speaking of 9/11 truth, justification of the Iraq and the violence of Islam.
My work is not to convince anyone to believe or disbelieve any of these things. Read my ‘About/Statement of Faith.’
If you want to discuss these things, there are way too many Web sites out there where you can do just that.
And yes, you mentioned you’re an Atheist. If you want to share your story in relevance to that, I am all ears.