A new nail on the Cross that Benedict XVI has to bear! The New York Times today turned its two-front witch hunt against Joseph Ratzinger from Milwaukee to Munich with a new allegation on the Father H case. A new allegation was inevitable and predictable given that, inexplicasbly, the Archdiocese of Munich has not volunteered any further information of the kind that is 'discoverable' by any determined sleuth - in this case because the existence of a document is alleged, and because muckrakers will always find some insider who can be made to say the expected conditional statements "if", "may", 'possibly' - from a distance of 30 years!, as reported here.
John Allen has good reason to say today "I told you so!", along with those of us who can look at this situation objectively but with sincere concern for how Joseph Ratzinger is portrayed.
Pope was told pedophile priest
would get transfer
By NICHOLAS KULISH and KATRIN BENNHOLD
March 26, 2010
MUNICH —
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.
[What he approved, as this story itself confirms later below, and as the Archdiocese stated from the very beginning, was parish accommodations for the priest, not the therapy, which was already pre-arranged apparently by the Diocese of Essen.]
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.
What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear.
But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church said. [The church? Or their 'insider sources'??? This is the first time Fahr's name has come up! Notice the deliberate misdirection. The writer could have specifically said 'the archdiocese' not 'the church'!]
The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican, was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children.
The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.
Church officials defend Benedict by saying the memo was routine and was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” according to the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese.
But Father Wolf said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.
According to Father Wolf, who spoke with Father Gruber this week at the request of The New York Times, Father Gruber, the former vicar general, said that he could not remember a detailed conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Hullermann, but that Father Gruber refused to rule out that “the name had come up.” [Of such general statements are insinuations built!]
Benedict is well known for handling priestly abuse cases in the Vatican before he became Pope. While some have criticized his role in adjudicating such cases over the past two decades, he has also won praise from victims’ advocates for taking the issue more seriously, apologizing to American victims in 2008.
The future Pope’s time in Munich, in the broader sweep of his life story, has until now been viewed mostly as a steppingstone on the road to the Vatican. But this period in his career has recently come under scrutiny — particularly six decisive weeks from December 1979 to February 1980.
In that short span, a review of letters, meeting minutes and documents from personnel files shows, Father Hullermann went from disgrace and suspension from his duties in Essen to working without restrictions as a priest in Munich, despite the fact that he was described in the letter requesting his transfer as a potential “danger”
In September 1979, the chaplain was removed from his congregation [in Essen] after three sets of parents told his superior, the Rev. Norbert Essink, that he had molested their sons, charges he did not deny, according to notes taken by the superior and still in Father Hullermann’s personnel file in Essen.
On Dec. 20, 1979, Munich’s personnel chief, Father Fahr, received a phone call from his counterpart in the Essen Diocese, Klaus Malangré.
There is no official record of their conversation, but in a letter to Father Fahr dated that Jan. 3, Father Malangré referred to it as part of a formal request for Father Hullermann’s transfer to Munich to see a psychiatrist there.
Sexual abuse of boys is not explicitly mentioned in the letter, but the subtext is clear. “Reports from the congregation in which he was last active made us aware that Chaplain Hullermann presented a danger that caused us to immediately withdraw him from pastoral duties,” the letter said. By pointing out that “no proceedings against Chaplain Hullermann are pending,” Father Malangré also communicated that the danger in question was serious enough that it could have merited legal consequences.
He dropped another clear hint by suggesting that Father Hullermann could teach religion “at a girls’ school.”
On Jan. 9, Father Fahr prepared a summary of the situation for top officials at the diocese, before their weekly meeting, saying that
a young chaplain needed “medical-psychotherapeutic treatment in Munich” and a place to live with “an understanding colleague.”
Beyond that, it presented the priest from Essen in almost glowing terms, as a “very talented man, who could be used in a variety of ways.”
Father Fahr’s role in the case has thus far received little attention, in contrast to Father Gruber’s mea culpa.
Father Wolf, who is acting as the internal legal adviser on the Hullermann case, said in an interview this week that Father Fahr was “the filter” of all information concerning Father Hullermann.
He was also, according to his obituary on the archdiocese Web site, a close friend of Cardinal Ratzinger.
[Ergo, he would have discussed his routine parish duties with the cardinal in detail????]
A key moment came on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 1980. Cardinal Ratzinger presided that morning over the meeting of the diocesan council. His auxiliary bishops and department heads gathered in a conference room on the top floor of the bishop’s administrative offices, housed in a former monastery on a narrow lane in downtown Munich.
It was a busy day, with the deaths of five priests, the acquisition of a piece of art, and pastoral care in Vietnamese for recent immigrants, among the issues sharing the agenda with item 5d, the delicate matter of Father Hullermann’s future.
The minutes of the meeting include no references to the actual discussion that day, simply stating that a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment required room and board in a Munich congregation. “The request is granted,” read the minutes, stipulating that Father Hullermann would live at St. John the Baptist Church in the northern part of the city.
Church officials have their own special name for the language in meeting minutes, which are internal but circulate among secretaries and other diocese staff members, said Father Wolf, who has a digitized archive of meeting minutes, including those for the Jan. 15 meeting. “It’s protocol-speak,” he said. “Those who know what it’s about understand, and those who don’t, don’t.”
Five days later, on Jan. 20,
Cardinal Ratzinger’s officereceived a copy of the memo from his vicar general, Father Gruber, returning Father Hullermann to full duties, a spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed.
Father Hullermann resumed parish work practically on arrival in Munich, on Feb. 1, 1980. He was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish.
This week, new accusations of sexual abuse emerged, both from his first assignment in a parish near Essen, in northern Germany, and from 1998 in the southern German town of Garching an der Alz.
Father Fahr died two years ago. A spokesman for the diocese in Essen said that Father Malangré was not available for an interview. Father Malangré, now 88, recently had an accident and was confused and unreliable as a witness when questioned in an internal inquiry into the handling of Father Hullermann’s case, said the spokesman, Ulrich Lota. [HOW CONVENIENT FOR THE TIMES! Now, no one directly involved can rebut their insinuations!]
Father Gruber, who took responsibility for the decision to put Father Hullermann back into a parish, was not present at the Jan. 15 meeting, according to Father Wolf, and has not answered repeated interview requests.
All of the 'facts' - not the speculation, by the Times or by the 'witnesses' they interviewed - reported in this story could have been disclosed harmlessly beforehand by the Archdiocese to show transparency and good faith, and in the best interests of Benedict XVI. But no! they chose not to - which makes seemingly harmless routine business 'discovered' later by with-hunting investigators sound sinister as an indication, even if not proof, of possible 'guilt'!
In short: What this story claims is that according to an archdiocese official, Cardinal Ratzinger could have known about Hullermann's assignment to pastoral duties because his office was copy-furnished a memorandum to that effect.
Obviously, the Times sleuths have so far failed to find someone who wprked in Archbishop Ratzinger's office at the time who could tell them that yes, he/she remembers having shown the memo to the cardinal himself, but you can bet they are working on that.
If I were a reporter working on this case [or his/her editor], I would also try to find out routine information, such as how the Archdiocese of Munich handled the matter of parish assignments in Cardinal Ratzinger's time and whether it changed with Archbishops Wetter and Marx; how a comparable diocese the size of Munich generally handles the matter of pastoral assignments and how involved the archbishop gets to be in the minutiae of these assignments; get someone in Rome to find out how Cardinals Ruini and Valli handled these matters, how Cardinal Martini did it when he was Archbishop of Milan for almost two decades, how a large diocese in the USA does.
If you have time to dig about in toilet grouting with a toothpick in order to unlodge anything that could possibly be damaging to Cardinal Ratzinger, you should have the time to provide a comparable context for what you are seeking to smear him with!
NOTE WELL! None of what the Times and other muckrakers have come up with so far about Archbishop Ratzinger's role in the Hullerman case is a 'smoking gun' in any sense, but their ability to control the news and public opinion by choosing to reveal their 'discoveries' little by little is a tried and true way to ensure public interest in following the story to find out 'what next?', in other words, creating the very same conditions with which they treat a 'juicy scandal' in the secuular world.
The point that they are driving home meanwhile is that despite everything Benedict XVI has been saying and doing lately against sexual abuse of children by priests, his 'record' in the Hullermann case would seem to indicate that he himself had harbored and tolerated a known sex offender in his diocese, and knowingly or not, made possible his assignment to pastoral duties that allowed the priest to go on and commit further sex offenses.
That, so far, is their smoking gun.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 26/03/2010 13:01]