Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As I'm sure you know by now, Pope Benedict XVI has now been personally implicated in a case of priestly sex abuse, not as the abuser but as the superior who transferred the abuser to another parish where he merely found new victims. All of this in Germany when the pope was known by his real name, Joseph Ratzinger.
A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made "serious mistakes" in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest's transfer for therapy.
He had already been more than seriously implicated in the scandal of abuse by his more impersonal decisions. As Cardinal, it was Ratzinger who ordered all of the bishops and priests not to turn over any abusive priest to the police but to handle the situation internally. He was the one who brought Cardinal Law, a man responsible for covering up hundreds of cases of sex abuse by priests in Boston, to Rome to serve as one of his closest advisers. But this is the first time he was found to be personally involved in doing the thing that stains the church forever, moving a priest to another parish after raping a child rather than turning him over to the police to be tried and imprisoned.
Andrew Sullivan makes a very important point:
If this person headed a secular organization, or if he were a politician, he would be forced to resign. Why are the standards for the Catholic church so much lower on tolerance of child abuse than the rest of society? On what grounds can this Pope reprimand bishops and priests in Ireland or the US when he seems deeply entangled in the same kind of cover-ups himself?When, in other words, will the real victims come first? And moral responsibility meaningfully taken?
And, I might add, criminal responsibility as well. If anyone in nearly any other line of work - doctor, teacher, therapist, day care provider, etc - has knowledge of a child being abused and does not report it, they face criminal charges. To actively cover it up and move the offender to another parish is to become, at the very least, an accessory after the fact and to engage in aiding and abetting criminal activity.
Let me make this clear: Pope Benedict XVI and every single other priest, bishop or cardinal who knew of the abuse of a child by another member of the church and did not turn that person in to the police should be charged themselves with aiding and abetting and being accessories after the fact. That is what we would do with anyone in a similar position of authority in a secular institution; it is what we should do with them.
Politics
Comments
Now Ed, you're being too harsh on the old guy. The Church has already told us what their defense is: the devil made them do it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece
Posted by: Ironicus | March 17, 2010 12:12 PM
Let's be honest, though his guilt in setting the policy is actually worse than approving the move of this single priest. If he would have said that all incidents must be reported to secular authorities and cleaned house of anyone did otherwise he could have done a lot of good. The ingrained arrogance of the Catholic Church at this point in history is just stunning.
Posted by: penn | March 17, 2010 12:14 PM
We can dream, can't we? Imagine Joey Ratz doing his perp walk for obstruction of justice.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | March 17, 2010 12:29 PM
The above headline is a tad sensationalist. Adding the word "coverup" would make it a bit more accurate, no?
In the spirit of fair 'n' balanced reportage, it seems necessary to quote the words of the renowned president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the estimable Bill Donohue:
[Plus some carefully vague fiddling with timelines: apparently Ratzinger had nothing to do with managing pedophilia scandals until 2002 - really!]
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 17, 2010 12:54 PM
Quick clarification/correction: Simply not reporting a case of child abuse is not a crime in Germany. The rationale is that abuse survivors might be discouraged from seeking help if they must assume that any attempt to do so will automatically get the police involved.
A crime may be committed by participating in an “active” cover-up, e.g. destroying physical evidence. This line may have been crossed in some of these cases, I'm not sure.
Posted by: Maik | March 17, 2010 1:21 PM
Ratzy is head of a sovereign state now. That makes the indictment business a little bit tricker, doesn't it?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 17, 2010 1:32 PM
Does Judge Garzon handle child protection cases?
Posted by: Matty | March 17, 2010 1:43 PM
Some guy on Fark tried defending it by saying that it was the 70s, it was a different time, and the priests and the families were just used to this sort of thing.
I know. I was not particularly moved by that one.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 17, 2010 1:44 PM
So where the Hell is Mehmet Ali Agca when we really need him?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 1:49 PM
I remember reading, in coverage of a similar incident, about one of the Jesuits who was working a the "retreat" for molesting priests back in the 60's or 70's. He recommended that the Church (or at least the US branch) purchase an island somewhere and turn it into a monastery/retreat/prison for all these molesters, as it was his observation that therapy did not work and they would re-offend.
Of course I can't find a citation, but one can only imagine what that island would have been like.
Posted by: JustaTech | March 17, 2010 2:10 PM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-they-say-to-tango.html
Posted by: Cuttlefish | March 17, 2010 2:15 PM
James Hanley: Ratzy is head of a sovereign state now.
A bit. Furthermore, he's its absolute monarch, with full and absolute executive, legislative and judicial authority; and the position is held for life.
Essentially, an indictment under law (if even possible) would need to be backed by political will to at least threaten war (and the continuation of politics by other means) as the alternative to extradition. (Assassination as an alternative is effectively an act of war.) This isn't likely unless extensive evidence showed up that Benny had been an abuser himself-- which so far, there is no sign of.
If that turned up, however, it would be a different story. There would be epic pressure for him to resign, coming both from outside and from within the Church. If he didn't abdicate, Schism of the Church by the College of Cardinals electing a new pope has historical precedent; and despite an associated latae sententiae excommunication whose absolution is reserved to the Pope, there's the obvious codicil to a job held "for life"....
Posted by: abb3w | March 17, 2010 2:28 PM
The really interesting bit in all this is that the Primate of Ireland is refusing to step down unless the Pope orders him to. Which the Pope can't do without admitting his own culpability.
Pope: "You can't get away with this, you mug!"
Primate: "If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me, Ratzi!"
It's like Al Capone and Bugs Moran all over again.
Posted by: HP | March 17, 2010 2:30 PM
The problem with that Fark argument, aside from the ethics--laws against raping small children aren't a 21st century invention--is that if it had been no big deal, they wouldn't have been demanding signed promises of secrecy. Nobody signs a promise not to tell anyone that his sister pushed him in a mud puddle, or that he drew on the sidewalk with colored chalk.
Posted by: Vicki | March 17, 2010 2:42 PM
Against whom, the Swiss Guard?
Actually that would be hilarious.
Posted by: Nemo | March 17, 2010 3:13 PM
The Vatican's turf consists of a relatively small area entirely within the city limits of Rome. Either cops or other security forces could physically surround and blockade and seal off every passage into that area (unlikely, since the surrounding country is overwhelmingly Catholic); or a large protest march could clog every street and walkway in the area.
Protests could also be mobilized toward Vatican embassies in other countries. Also, governments could simply break off formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican and send their diplomats packing. As far as "invasion" options go, this is pretty much all there is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 17, 2010 3:36 PM
A bit harsh on Al & Bugs don't ya think ?
Posted by: steve | March 17, 2010 3:38 PM
Pull our tropops out of Afghanistan! Send them to the Vatican! THAT would be "the right war."
Posted by: uzza | March 17, 2010 3:43 PM
James Hanley i>"Ratzy is head of a sovereign state now. That makes the indictment business a little bit tricker, doesn't it?"
Not really. You see, we know that, over the last two decades, high level members of the Vatican have met with Al Qaeda operatives and that Pope Hussein tried to procure yellow cake from Nigeria and that he has mobile missiles pointed at Israel that are ready at 30 minutes notice and that he has secret chemical weapons labs mounted in trucks to evade detection...etc.
Hey, it's worked before...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 17, 2010 4:10 PM
Here is the New Mexico retreat or treatment center for priests with problems. Of course, some priests were paroled out to local churches, reoffended, and were transferred again. Oddly enough, the local rumor is that Al Capone personally donated the land to work off some sin.
Posted by: Local | March 17, 2010 5:08 PM
Duh. Because the Catholic church values sweeping this sort of thing under the rug over discouraging child abuse.
It's not even hypocrisy anymore. Hypocrisy is when you're split about your value system.
These guys aren't split.
And they've made their priorities clear to subordinates: any priest who think child abuse is a worse crime than embarrassing the Holy Mother Church will spend the rest of his career running a parish--and probably not a nice one, either.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 17, 2010 5:19 PM
Local @ # 20: ... the New Mexico retreat or treatment center for priests with problems. Of course, some priests were paroled out to local churches...
And I'm told (no link readily available) that as a consequence, the archdiocese of New Mexico was the first to break the billion-dollar level in child-abuse litigation.
And it's not like the Land of Enchantment leads the nation in litigiousness or heresy.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 17, 2010 5:21 PM
For some reason, I'm cackling with glee. Let's see how His "Holiness" spins this one!
Posted by: WMDKitty | March 17, 2010 7:01 PM
A bit harsh on Al & Bugs don't ya think ?
Well, as you recall, the conflict between Capone and Moran ended on Valentine's Day with the brains of several of Bugs's top lieutenants splattered all over the walls of a garage in Lincoln Park -- something the cynic in me expects to be the outcome of the current gang war.
Now, if they could only bust the Vatican for tax evasion . . ..
Posted by: HP | March 17, 2010 9:09 PM
Ugh, how completely and utterly disgusting. I won't be waiting with bated breath for an apology, though, or, you know, reforms that actually change anything.
Posted by: axilet | March 17, 2010 9:18 PM
THE ROMAN POPE BEEN EXPOSED AS AN AGENT OF PIAPS!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | March 17, 2010 9:23 PM
In my comment 24, I meant to include a link.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.
[relevance factor: 7/9. Bugs Moran refused to go along with Capone because Capone was involved in prostitution, and Moran thought that he was the better Catholic, and so he refused to take pimp money.]
Posted by: HP | March 17, 2010 10:38 PM
I remember reading, in coverage of a similar incident, about one of the Jesuits who was working a the "retreat" for molesting priests back in the 60's or 70's. He recommended that the Church (or at least the US branch) purchase an island somewhere and turn it into a monastery/retreat/prison for all these molesters, as it was his observation that therapy did not work and they would re-offend
You're thinking of Gerald Fitzgerald, originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese and founder of the Paracletes, a religious order that ran a mental health treatment center in New Mexico and eventually a chain of centers worldwide.
Beginning in the 1950s, he waged an unsuccessful campaign to kick sex abusers out of the priesthood. Getting nowhere with that, he persuaded the bishop above him in N.M. to support a plan to buy an island in Barbados where all molester priests could be permanently isolated. The plan got as far as a down payment, but the bishop died. The next bishop was z typical abuser recycler. He nixed the plan.
Posted by: Dr X | March 18, 2010 12:41 AM
It's amazing that anyone is surprised by these allegations. If you tried to design an organisation specifically for child abusers, it would be hard to come up with a better design than the catholic church:
1. Insist that your members not marry or have kids of their own, naturally.
2. No women, naturally.
3. Insist that kids address your members as 'Father'.
4. Tell the kids that if they do not do everything that your members tell them to, god will punish them.
5. Tell the parents that they are not allowed to use contraception - results in more kids to abuse.
6. Tell the parents that they are obliged to regularly confess their sins to your members - provides leverage in case of complaints.
7. Construct large soundproof buildings, preferably in isolated locations away from other people.
8. Lure kids to the aforementioned buildings under the pretense of 'mass', or 'service', or 'choir practise'.
9. Force the kids to drink wine (tell them it is the blood of christ)
10. Abuse...
Posted by: Darkstar | March 18, 2010 7:45 AM
Steve @17 - remember both Al & Bugs were Catholics.
Posted by: Rob Jase | March 18, 2010 10:37 AM
Dr X: I'd really appreciate a citation for your information in #28. Thanx in advance.
Posted by: Raging Bee (and this time I DO mean Raging) | March 18, 2010 11:41 AM
Mr. Raging Bee: You really hate looking stuff up, don't you? I think Gerald Fitzgerald's wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fitzgerald_(priest)provides an overview and some bibliography with I'm assuming some sort of citable information and seems mostly consonant with the comment, but since I only took seven seconds from start to finish I really didn't delve that deeply.
Posted by: Buffoon | March 18, 2010 2:21 PM
Getting out of three-link-moderation purgatory....
Less broken link.
Posted by: abb3w | March 26, 2010 1:27 PM
The ultimate primary source on this (that all of the other Wikipedia sources rely) appears to be stories in the National Catholic Reporter. (link-1, link-2.) The NCR apparently had some of the letters on-line when the story came out last March, but seem to have since removed the PDF.
Posted by: abb3w | March 26, 2010 1:29 PM
A story that might just come true soon @ http://www.arniesaringer.com/
Posted by: arnie saringer | April 22, 2010 9:57 PM
@ Raging B 31:
I did not post that comment. Someone else is using my name. Let's see, who did I piss off recently...?
Posted by: Dr X | April 22, 2010 10:58 PM
Bee:
I'm sorry, that was my comment. I hadn't blockquoted properly and didn't recognize the first paragraph. Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can pull up a citation for you.
Posted by: Dr X | April 22, 2010 11:03 PM
But this is the first time he was found to be personally involved in doing the thing that stains the church forever, moving a priest to another parish after raping a child rather than turning him over to the police to be tried and imprisoned.
Posted by: Houston Escorts | March 22, 2011 1:43 PM