In Defense of the Pontiff and His Priests by Jonas Cruz

 Pope Benedict XVI

Silence is an integral part of the life of the Church. Try to look at it; churches, monasteries, abbeys, seminaries—all of these are places associated with silence. This is so since the Church believes that it is in man’s inner silence that he is united with his Creator; God speaks in the silence of man’s heart. 

One may argue, nevertheless, that silence is not the way to address the pressing tragedy of child molestation devastating the Catholic Church. The issue across Europe and certain parts of America has been spreading like wildfire, finding itself just an inch away from the door steps of the Holy See. The Supreme Pontiff himself is now implicated. Apparently, when he was still Archbishop of Munich, Germany, as the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he allegedly allowed an erring priest to resume pastoral work after just a few sessions of psychiatric rehabilitation. Eventually, the said priest was convicted of child molestation. When Ratzinger was eventually promoted to head the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith which is the Doctrinal Watchdog of the Catholic Church, he allegedly ordered the quashing of the Ecclesiastical hearing of a priest in Wisconsin who molested 200 deaf boys in a Church-ran welfare home for the deaf.

Where are these things going?

Unfortunately, people tend to make conclusive generalizations without trying first to look into the matter. Try to consider the following:

1.       In private corporations, there are appointments and even terminations issued by the Human Resources. In letters of such kind, more often than not, the top management is furnished with a copy. You do not expect the President of a corporation, for example, to read all the copies furnished to him daily especially that such letters are merely for filing purposes, do you? Same with the Munich case. The decision to reinstate the erring priest was a decision of the then Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Munich. In the decision, Ratzinger was allegedly furnished with a copy. Though physical evidence would establish that the then Archbishop was furnished a copy of the decision of reinstatement, there is still a greater chance that he could have not read the said letter, hence unaware of the reinstatement.

2.       The Wisconsin case is a little more technical. The molestation, which occurred between the 1960’s-1980’s, only re-surfaced recently—after the statutory 10-year moratorium for a case to be filed has lapsed. More or less, the quashing of the ecclesiastical hearing was ordered—not by the then Cardinal Ratzinger but by a deputy, actually—to halt a process which would produce results that would only be deemed moot and academic; they cannot run after the pedophile priest, Rev. Murphy, because the moratorium to file a case has lapsed—and even if it hasn’t, Rev. Murphy has been dead for years now. Even democracy follows certain standard operating procedures or protocols in dealing with litigation. What more could you expect from a strictly and absolutely hierarchical organization such as the Catholic Church?

3.    With regard to Rev. Murphy’s letter of leniency sent to the then Cardinal Ratzinger when the latter was still the head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (SCDF), I do not think it was directly acted upon. On the first place, the issue at hand was a disciplinary matter, not doctrinal. The most extensive way that the then Cardinal could have done in this regard is to endorse the letter to the suitable authority, i.e., the head of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. I do not think he could have granted the leniency since it is not his then office’s concern.

Why was the Church silent on this all this time? I have said that silence is integral to the life of the Church, and I think I have to go back to that proposition but in a different angle.

The Catholic Church, though nowadays other would perceive it as similar to a gigantic corporation, is still founded on spiritual grounds. From time to time, people see that the Catholic Church is pursuing political and temporal interests just like any other state. Nevertheless, the ultimate and supreme goal of the Church is still geared towards the spiritual homeland where all are united under the love of the Almighty. The Vatican is indeed a sovereign state, but it is set apart from all the other nations by the fact that it holds unto the Divine Right.

Hence, the silence of the Vatican over the issues of abuse in the Church cannot be arbitrarily concluded as a cover-up. Unlike the usual states with defined litigation procedures where hearings of a case are publicized for transparency and public right to information, the Vatican holds the protocol of silence in every proceeding that it undertakes. The election of the Pontiff is the best example. No one is ever allowed to divulge the process of election unless willfully permitted by the Pope-elect, otherwise a Cardinal elector would face the pain of excommunication from the Church—no, a Cardinal who would divulge the electoral proceedings would not just lose his ecclesiastic hierarchical status; he loses his being a Catholic all together. The secrecy on the election of the Church’s head is so designed such that it will be free from external influences especially from third parties who might be interested in the Papacy to advance personal gains. Though this is only theoretical nowadays, such is so true during the middle ages where powerful families would be killing one another just to have a family member on the throne of Peter.

As far as proceedings considering erring priests are concerned, silence is practiced under the same light of freedom from external influences. However, more than that, silence is practiced over such proceedings to protect all the parties and persons involved. No, it’s not like the regular process of Bureaus of Investigation that would strip-off a suspected criminal before the public’s eye, inviting prejudice and bias against the person and luring trials by publicity. The ending: the person has been condemned even before he was sentenced. The Church, by way of contrast, holds everything under great secrecy. Aside from protecting the identities of anyone involved, the Church believes more in salvation, rather than damnation; in forgiveness, rather than condemnation; in love, rather than hatred;  in union, rather than division; in acceptance, rather than rejection; in a repentant heart, rather than one that is as hard as stone. The Church believes in Christ more than it believes anyone in this world.

However, I know it should not stop here. Assuming—and believing—that the Pontiff is not really red-handed in both the Munich and Wisconsin abuses when he was still archbishop, he must take responsibility now that he is the Pope. The perpetrator of the Wisconsin case may be dead by now, but the wounds left about by the abuse lives on with the victims. While as a devout Catholic I respect the silence protocol being implemented by the Church, it must nevertheless take bold steps to rectify the mistakes by handing-over to the secular authorities those who commit pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse. If it wants to hold trials in secrecy, it may do so; however, when and when someone is proven guilty, the Church must be willing to hand them over to the authorities as a form of purgation and purification of the Church.

Just as Judas was a corruption within the original twelve apostles, so is this horrible corruption within the Church. As such, this must not be taken against the Church taken together—much so against the Pope. There are still thousands of priests out there who have given-up themselves to the missions, reaching far-flung places and away from their loved-ones, for the service of Christ; there are those whose lives have been characterized by constant communion with God, submitting themselves to the life of monasticism; there are those who serve remote parishes, giving their time, love and affection to the people who lives in poverty but clings on hope; there are priests out there who always listen to the people’s predicament, but have no one to confide to; there are priests out there who give everything that they have, but when all is lost, has nothing to hold; there are priests out there whose lives are for the people, but who die alone.

To conclude, allow me to say that I do not believe that Papal abdication is necessary, or that it is even possible. The last time it happened was more or less 500 years ago and I do not think the Pontiff would relinquish the throne. He should not. This kind of moment in the history of the Church and of the Papacy—for more than two thousand years—is one that strengthens and fortifies the rock upon which Jesus Christ placed the foundation of His Church. As the Great Apostle to the Gentile, Saint Paul would put it, Therefore I rejoice when I suffer infirmities, humiliations, wants, persecution—all for Christ! For when I am weak, then I am strong! (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Viva Il Papa!