The Pope's Problem: Is the Pope Responsible for the Priest Abuse Epidemic?

Most people reading that question will either be intrigued or mortified. But, there is a good reason for asking it.

The man now known as Pope Benedict XVI, formerly called Joseph Ratzinger, was a prominent Cardinal at the Vatican. Importantly, Ratzinger was the head of an office known as the Center for the Doctrine of Faith, the CDF, for 25 years. The CDF was the office responsible for receiving reports of sexual abuse of children by priests in the church from all over the world. It was the CDF that decided on and ordered a policy of complete silence on the issue. Under Ratzinger's leadership, bishops who became aware of 'problem' priests were directed to handle the reports as "pontifical secret".

Let's maks sure that is clear. The man who is now Pope was the very person who received reports of children being raped at the hands of priests and did worse than nothing. He made it clear that bishops were to let his office and not civil authorities know about these cases. A pattern emerged that when a priest was reported, he was given a punishment under Canon Law which might include saying some Hail Mary's, denial of the privilege of giving Mass and some counseling by other priests. The pedophile rapist would then be sent to another parish. No one in the new location was told why the priest was being moved there.

The offender would simply be moved to a new parish with new unsuspecting victims. This happened all over the world, with thousands of children being put a risk and being victimized by repeat offenders.

Joseph Ratzinger served as prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) for 25 years, a quarter of a century, from 1981 to 2005, until he became Pope Benedict XVI in April of 2005. The CDF, formerly the Inquisition, is the branch of Vatican 'government' that is responsible for disciplining priests, under the rules of Canon Law.

It seemed very unlikely that Ratzinger could be head of this office and not be aware of exactly what was going on in churches all over the world. Despite the fact that Vatican documents are hidden and protected from public viewing, or even from scrutiny by authorities, proof has been found that he did know and was indeed, the person responsible in large part, for the cover-up.

In a notable case from the United States, a priest named Father Stephen Kiesle was convicted in criminal court for physically restraining by tying up, and raping two boys. In 1981, his bishop sent an urgent notice recommending defrocking of this disgraceful priest. Ratzinger instead, did nothing as he did not want to cause "detriment within the community of Christ's faithful". This same priest after a light criminal sentence, was not defrocked for 6 years, despite Kiesle's own request that such action be taken. Still Ratzinger said no action would be taken against the priest. In 1985, since Ratzinger again iterated in a letter (his signature is on it) that "the good of the universal church" was the primary concern of the Vatican, not removing offending preists. The Vatican's defense is that since he had already been criminally tried, there was no reason to take action on the status of his priesthood? So, it was better for them to keep a CONVICTED rapist in their ranks than risk further attention to the matter and scandal. Kiesle was again convicted of rape in 2004, but was no longer a priest by this time. One has to wonder if he wasn't a priest during his first offense, he would have received a harsher sentence and may even have been in jail, preventing the re-offense. Speculation only, but the question looms.

In Wisconsin, Father Lawrence Murphy raped and terrorized over 200 deaf boys over two decades. After years of ignoring the complaints of children, in 1996, the church began a canonical 'trial' with Ratzinger emphasizing the need for absolute secrecy. It didn't matter though, as the trial was halted when Murphy became terminally ill, so the priest could die with his priestly honors intact.

What exactly Ratzinger knew about Father Maciel from Mexico is also subject to debate. It seemed that when Ratzinger found out that this priest had a long and illustrious history of abusing boys, he did want to pursue it after a while, but was stopped by Pope John Paul II. But even after he became Pope, Benedict only encouraged Maciel to retire. He did not report him to authorities, nor did he disgrace him with the shame of defrocking.  Many Catholics state on their forums and in discussions that we should praise Benedict for "going after" Maciel. No, you do not get praise for knowing that someone destroyed lives by raping little boys and then offering early retirement as a punishment. That is to completely disregard the seriousness of the crime and dismiss the very real suffering endured by the boys at Maciel's hands. This man who retired with his priestly honors intact fathered several children of his own and sexually abused them too!

There are unfortunately other examples of cover-ups and scandals, the scope of which is beyond this article.

At one point, the Pope dismissed the scandal stating that less than 1% of priests were abusers. This number is now accepted by the Vatican to be over 5%. This is only based on verified accusations, whether by leaked supporting documents or by priests' confessions. The number of abused children is well over 10,000 worldwide since the 1950s. The Vatican has documents in its possession that would likely make that number much, much higher.

Although the Vatican attempted to brush off this abuse scandal as an American problem, reporting of 'problem priests', rapists, escalated from all over the world. In Ireland, it seems the scandal and claims against the church were anticipated. The church, in 1987, puportedly began accumulating large insurance policies in case of compensation claims against priests in the future.

The Vatican, in addition to blaming the secular societal values of American life, also blamed homosexuality and a smear campaign by the media for the scandal. Priests, on the other hand, were offered protection, forgiveness and chances to redeem themselves.

There seems to be no doubt that Benedict is morally culpable for hiding, protecting and being a party to trafficking pedophile priests. He of course, did not force priests to offend and in that way is not responsible for their actions and sexual abuse of children by priests has been a long-standing problem. But when victims started speaking out in large numbers, the priests and the church were protected. The children were not.

But whether he can be held civilly liable and sued, or criminally liable and prosecuted (or at least be questioned under oath) is quite complicated. The Pope is considered a Head of State. Mussolini crafted a deal naming the Vatican a sovereign state. Since then, although the requirements of statehood are not met, most other governments have accepted that the Vatican (or the Holy See as the religious government), is indeed a state and that its leader is afforded immunity.

Geoffrey Robertson, a respected, renowned and experienced international human rights lawyer explains the complicated entanglements in his book "The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse". He details the evidence against Ratzinger, discusses the Vatican claim to statehood, and concludes that the Pope will probably be protected from criminal action by his position as Head of State. He also approaches the idea that what the Pope did to cover these crimes, allowing priests to re-offend on a large-scale could amount to crimes against humanity. Robertson explains why cases currently being pursued are important for future claims.

Much of the information here is from that book. It is well-researched and referenced and as far as I can tell, is a fair indictment of the Pope and the Vatican on these matters.