A comment from a concerned abuse-victim culled from a larger conversation

July 2, 2010

Ratzinger was much more than part of “a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction” – it was during his time in charge of CDF that CDF tried (but thankfully failed, due to outrage among clergy abuse victims) to implement a policy where all cases of abuse would be handled directly by Rome.

Yes, it sounds great, given many victims had, in desperation, gone as high as the then pope in search of action when local bishops failed to act. But Rome also failed to act, so survivors had no confidence in any better outcome if all cases were handled directly by Rome, and there would have been no further avenue of redress. Moreover – and something which would have been far more disastrous for abuse survivors seeking action – if all cases had been handled by Rome directly, all the documentation for those cases, even if held in Vatican embassies, would have been on foreign soil and not able to be subpoenaed for criminal trials.

Given that criminal trials have, in many instances, been the only avenue for justice for clergy abuse survivors, there was such a groundswell of desperate outrage that CDF dropped the move. But I don’t imagine it started without Ratzinger’s support and/or encouragement.

Denominations in general are having to do far more publicly to address the issues than in the past, due to the much higher publicity of the issue. So in both Catholic and Anglican circles, as well as other denominations, church leaders are doing things, and changing policies, simply out of political expediency. Unfortunately, most of it’s surface, and the complaints process for individual victims is little changed. It’s only a few months since I was supporting a Catholic victim who was being pressured into signing a settlement agreement (the standard “we’ll agree to pay you this money if you agree a) never to bring any other action against the minister or the church, b) not to disclose the details of the agreement, and c) not to talk about what happened to you”), which the church’s own lawyer assured her didn’t really bind her legally to anything so she needn’t worry about signing it!

Every single apology Ratzinger has made for clergy abuse has been in the context of groups of priests, not in public. The one in Australia was in a priest mass – it was reported to the public, but there were no members of the general public (and therefore few clergy abuse victims) there. What sort of an apology is it when it’s not even made where the majority of offended people can be there to hear it, but several of the perpetrators can???

Clare Pascoe
http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org
Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia