In his Divine Comedy, Dante tells us that Pope Boniface VIII belongs in the eighth circle of hell, the circle reserved for those who commit sins of fraud and treachery. The particular sin for which Boniface deserves his infernal fate is the sin of simony, i.e., the sin of trading in spiritual goods as if they were temporal goods. For Dante, Boniface’s sin of simony included not only the literal selling of spiritual goods for temporal goods; it also included Boniface’s wrongful assertion (through his actions, but also through his papal bull of November 18, 1302, Unam Sanctam) that his authority as supreme leader of the Church also gave him authority as supreme leader of the world. In light of the newest revelations regarding sexual abuse by priests and administrative cover-up by bishops, one cannot help wondering whether Benedict XVI — like Pope Boniface VIII before him — has been party to a deeply imperfect Church culture which has all-too-often failed to distinguish adequately between spiritual goods and temporal goods. For in recent years, some members of the Church hierarchy have appeared to behave more like members of a Pedophile Protection Syndicate than like members of the Body of Christ (by prioritizing the protection of their own power, reputation, and assets, over the protection of innocent, defenseless children). Has Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict been part of the problem, or will he be part of the solution?
Recall: in Spain in 2002, responding to demands that the Church take more seriously the growing allegations of sexual abuse by American priests and cover-up by American bishops, then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared: “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign . . . to discredit the church.” We now know, of course, that the allegations of abuse and cover-up were not merely a “planned campaign to discredit the Church,” but were the heartfelt and honest pleas of innocent victims struggling to be heard. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2002 statement not only mis-characterized the pleas of these innocent victims; it also re-victimized the victims insofar as it labeled their pleas as unworthy of a response and — furthermore — as part of an evil plot (”a planned campaign to discredit the church”). To the many innocent victims of clerical abuse and cover-up, Cardinal Ratzinger’s defiant, dismissive, and accusatory words must have been especially stinging and hurtful.
In his 2010 Palm Sunday address, obliquely addressing renewed questions about the Vatican’s (and his own) handling of clerical abuse and cover-up, Pope Benedict suggested that he would not be intimidated by “the petty gossip of dominant opinion.” Will the pope’s recent words about “petty gossip” turn out to be as ill-advised as his 2002 words about a “planned campaign to discredit the church”? I do not know the answer to that question, of course. I am quite willing to believe (as some have claimed) that the pope is being unfairly targeted by his over-zealous, agenda-driven critics. But I am also willing to believe that the pope is once again engaging in rhetoric that will do more to suppress and deflect the truth, than to reveal it. The problem is that faithful, honest, truth-seeking Catholics simply don’t what to believe, when so many important questions remain unanswered. There is, for example, good reason to believe that in 1980, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (as Archbishop of Munich and Freising) not only received a memo announcing the reassignment of known pedophile priest Peter Hullermann to pastoral duties (including duties that involved work with children), but also oversaw a January 15 meeting in which Fr. Hullermann’s reassignment was discussed (see story in the TimesOnline). Until now, the pope has allowed Vatican officials and others to say (or strongly imply) that he was not in any way knowledgeable about or responsible for the reassignment of Fr. Hullermann in 1980 (as we now know, Fr. Hullermann went on to abuse many other children, before eventually being tried and convicted by civil authorities in 1986). Even if the pope is entirely innocent, as his defenders say he is, he would best serve his own interests — as well as the interests of the Church at large — if he were to give a fuller account of what — if anything — he knew of Fr. Hullermann’s reassignment in 1980, and/or why he should not be criticized today for having known nothing, or doing nothing, about that reassignment. Unfortunately, the pope’s own prior statements and his prior responses to this ongoing crisis have led many fair-minded, reasonable people to begin wondering whether he is really part of the solution or part of the problem.
