Principles of Catholic Theology is my favorite from him. Dogma and Preaching is good too.
Speaking of written works, Ratzinger is also the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating that the "Crimine solicitationies" law (regarding strict secrecy in sex abuse cases) is still in effect.
The law to which Ratzinger's letter referred was issued by Pope John XXIII 40 years ago. The law itself is chilling, as it describes a mandatory condition of secrecy for both the perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to `be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
[...] Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases `in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
We can believe what we wish about Benedict XVI's youthful nationalism or lack thereof. What we do know from his letter is that as recently as 2001, he supported and encouraged the drawing of a curtain of secrecy over widespread sexual abuse by clergy.
Oh, brother...
"Catholic" "liberals" (who are neither Catholic, nor liberals, but just plain heretics) are having a hard time trying to swallow the election of our new and dear Holy Father.
Lovehandles, you should rather call yourself "Hatefest"...
My favorite book by the Roman Pontiff is The Spirit of the Liturgy. He speaks in his wonderful style all that I think about the Mass, and how it should be celebrated, but am not able to express.
Sorry, New Catholic, but I'm an Old Catholic. And I know its hard when you discover that an organisation you just joined is less than perfect ...
... which part of my post do you disagree with btw? *S*
L.H. I disgree with your assesment of motives for the secrecy. It seems Old Catholics have a habit of assuming the worst of their history, ancestors and teachers. I guess it is easier to tear up the roots and build on the rubble than it is to truly try to understand the foundations and build upon them with thankfulness for the work of the generations before. That old revolution mindset- it is what distinguishes progressives from the faithful, in my opinion.
JBB
L.H. is an "Old Catholic," eh? Well that explains everything.
"it describes a mandatory condition of secrecy for both the perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests."
See, I knew I loved this Pope. This only makes me love him more.
Makes me feel like some Gregorian Chant . . . .
Oremus. De haeretico comburendo. Alleluia. Amen.
(Hat tip to "1066 and All That")
JBB, so what do you think the motives for the secrecy are/were? To protect the victims? Give me a break ...
LH
I think they have a long tradition of secrecy dating back to the days when the secular and sacred arms of government vied over who would try ecclessiastic crimes. the Church wanted to keep things close to the chest. Also, the primary purpose of Church investigations is repentence on the part of the offenders, not justice. Justice is the secular arm's goal, primarily. Mercy is the goal of the Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger decried the excessive secrecy of the Church courts back in the 1960's, and has done a lot to open up the process to greater scrutiny. Ancient institutions move slowly, and there is sometimes wisdom in the way things are done that may not be completely visible to a particular generation. No generation should therefore demand that everything conform to its desires, but should allow the democracy of the ages to cast votes as well. Some critics have argued that Pope Benedict is the right man for the century- the 11th century. Despite their mockery there is a kernal of truth to what they say. Respect for our parents in the faith means giving real weight to their ideas which have survived the trial of the ages. I suggest that anything the Church does should be assumed to have a good reason behind it until a heavy burden of proof demonstrates otherwise. It is the only polite and respectful thing to do, and it means no revolutions, just careful building on old trustworthy foundations.
Yes, the 11th Century...
May Pope Benedict's shadow and influence on the future be as powerful as that of St.Gregory VII, the great Hildebrand!
JBB, the tradition may be long, but that doesnt make it right. Unfortunately for them paedophile priests are not above the law, and if any other organisation than the Church attempted to hide known criminals I have a feeling you would be the first to protest. I realsie that ancient institutions move slowly, but move they must, especially in areas like this which put the Church at risk of losing even more followers than it already has done.
Polite and respectful is always nice, but when a priest is just shunted from parish to parish and continues to work with young children it is perhaps time to put those children first. Paedophiles are not only sinners, they actually suffer from psychological problems which both make them the way that they are and which cannot always be overcome by an act of repentance, however well intentioned that act might be.
LH
Yes, I do consider the Church different than all other human institutions, and so agree with your assessment of my probable course of action. Your comment reminds me of a joke. 2 Irish men are working on the landscaping across the street from a bordello. They see a protestant minister slip quietly in the door. "Gosh and begorrah, its a terrible thing to see a minister sink so low." says one to the other.
In a short time they spot the local Rabbi slip in. "Saints preserve us, there go the Jews as well!" says the other.
In another short while the local Prist slips in. The Irishmen immediately remove their caps and cross themselves. The first one said, "Poor things, one of the girls must have died!"
Oops, "Prist" was supposed to be "Priest".
I had another thought on your last comment. I was reading an article a few months ago which discussed how different ages felt about certain sins. In the 12th century, the big sin which seemed unforgivable was avarice (greed). Perhaps this is why so many "poor" groups emerged- the franciscans, the beg-hards, etc. Today sexual sins seem to be the unforgivable ones. Today's social action groups among the pius, serious christians often target these sins directly (Pornography, homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia) or indirectly (abortion). Personally, I agree with the 12th century that avarice is the more dangerous sin. If we kept the teachings of the ages in front of our eyes, perhaps we could actually make progress rather than endlessly tred the wheel of rediscovery. I am heartened by the recent compendium of social teachings of the Catholic Church. It has a large emphasis on economic justice. That's what I'd like to be taught. I'm a physician, and I'm feeling very challenged by the ideas of the Catholic Medical Association and the rather unchristian state of modern medicine's economics. I'm hoping for the Church to step up to the plate of teaching us more about the basic principles of Christian economic life in a modern economy. How does usury fit in? What is the Church's view of how the Professions (Law, Medicine, etc) should work? It's an exciting time to be a Catholic!
One more thought (sorry). I think the intractability of pedophilia is just an example of something many moderns would rather not acknowledge. Sin is a monster that devours your soul. It is not a trivial issue. Those who whitewash small sins are likely to be completely unarmed when the big ones that lie deep inside, next to the heart, have an opportunity to express themselves. Past ages spent a lot of time and energy combatting sin within. Perhaps we ought to listen to them there as well, and strife to understand why they felt it good to flagellate themselves and engage in bizarre penances. Again, the idea that something our Fathers in the faith did doesn't make sense to us should make the loyal heart strive to understand, rather than to assume the worst and mock.
JBB, I'm afraid I cant agree that avarice is a greater sin than paedophilia.
Avarice generally doesnt effect others directly, unless it leads the avaricious person to embezzlement or robbing banks, and even then the victims tend to be insured.
Paedophiles on the other hand actually spread their sins throughout the immediate community, leaving a legacy of broken children who have almost certainly been turned against the Church.
And although you say that the Church is somehow above human law (I'm not sure about the scriptural justification for this stance) , I would still be interested to know what would you do if you knew your local priest was abusing one of your own children, or if a known paedophile had been moved to your parish and was allowed by the Bishop to be alone with one of your children?
By the way, it doesnt bother me if somebody wants to whip themselves, as it means that at least they arent whipping somebody else *S*
When a priest is under attack for simply fulfilling his priestly duties, then he is of course worthy of protection from the Church.
But when he sins against little children, he not only sins against God and the Church, but also against the whole Communion.
Although the Church may have a duty to protect a priest in his capacity as a member of the Church, it also has a duty towards the whole of the Catholic Communion, which includes the defenceless children.
Thus if the Church cannot protect the little children itself, then it is up to the Communion to do so, and if they have no confidence in the Church itself, then they have no option but to turn to the laws of man.
That document does not call for strict secrecy in sex abuse cases generally. Also does not prevent reporting abuse as civil crime to civil authorities, "Solicitation" in canon law means violation of the sanctity of the Sacrament of Reconciliation by propositioning the penitent. Because it's in Reconciliation, investigations of misdoing have to be as firmly under the seal of confession as the confessional is --- elsewise nobody would report wrongdoing, lest the content of their confession be made public, and no one would cooperate in the investigation or admit to the crime, out of fear of being accused of breaking the confessional seal.
I don't believe Catholics who grievously wound their communion with the Church through dissent from her teachings have any business criticising the actions of any Church member, whether lay or clerical, or any Church policy or canon.
If we can get back to Pope Benedict's bibligography... :D
Can anyone help me out here? I'm looking for a statement which I seem to recall then-Cardinal Ratzinger released soon after John Paul II published *Ut Unum Sint.* In this statement, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified the parameters within which the precise mode of papal governance can be reconceptualized.
As you may recall, in *Ut Unum Sint,* JPII had called for dialogue on the precise ways in which the papacy could / should operate in the future. Some people misunderstood this as a clarion-call for a complete overhaul of the papacy, up to and including reducing papal primacy to mere primacy of honor. I *seem* to recall that Ratzinger's statement addressed these misconceptions--at least obliquely--by giving guidelines as to how the papacy's mode of governance might legitimately change--parameters for the discussion, if you will.
Am I dreaming this? Did Cardinal Ratzinger really release such a statement, in any form or context? If so, could someone refer me to it?
Thanks so much in advance!
Diane
Commenting by HaloScan
