Vatican XII

Back on May 13 in my Vatican XI rant against the pope, Richard responded to say that the pope wields less influence than we non-catholics think and I shouldn't bother to listen to Benedict.

But he does have a lot of power over what happens in the administration of the church. The New York Times continues today with another article in its investigative journalism about the history of the Vatican's handling of the sex-abusing priests in the days when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and in charge of the Vatican office under whose jurisdiction sex abuse cases came.

The article today reveals just how much bishops from around the world were pleading with the Vatican to take some action. There was confusion about who had what responsibility, and documents have now come to light that make it clear that all cases of sexual abuse were to be referred to Ratzinger's office for handling. But nothing was being done, and the bishops could get no guidance nor help, despite repeated petitions and pleas.

Finally, in 2000 a group of bishops traveled to Rome from Australia, Canada, England, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and the U.S. -- and essentially forced them to listen.

In addition to handling abusive priests, Ratzinger's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was also charged with other duties more consistent with his interests -- and that's where he was putting his energies. At the same time these scandals were going unaddressed by the Vatican, Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which Ratzinger saw as Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.

In his defense, the article also points out that he was answerable to John Paul II, who seems to have been even more opposed to taking the abuse scandal seriously. And, when forced to by pubic opinion and bad publicity for the church, Benedict has responded in some ways that are good.

But it seems clear, both from his history and his repeated gaffes -- even while doing the right thing -- that he just does not really get it. For example, while now taking a much harder line of discipline toward abusers, he still makes references to this coming to light now by people who want to hurt the church. The problem in his eyes is not the abuse but the harm to the church.

It may be impossible for him to do any better than he has done. But, to this non-catholic observer, his primary concern is for the institution of the church -- and only when that is threatened does he turn his attention to human factor. I'm glad Richard and his fellow intellectual, progressive catholics do not lose faith because of this, but I would find it difficult.

Ralph