Pope Benedict XVI was recently in the news. After the publication of a report that dealt with abuse in the archdiocese of Munich. It accused Benedict XVI of having failed to act on 4 cases of child abuse when he was Archbishop from 78 till 82. That was before Ratzinger was appointed prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of faith by Pope John Paul II after which he became increasingly conservative and eventually ended up getting the Pope to let the CDF crack down on abuse when local bishops were being too slow. Progressive German bishops like Lehmann have actually lamented Benedict’s turn to the right under John Paul II. The far left Cardinal Reinhard Marx is also confirmed by the report to have been guilty of complicity in abuse at least twice.
Benedict XVI denies the 4 accusations against him and his defense team has shown in detail that the evidence fails to support 3 of the charges (which are based on assumption) and refutes the fourth. As of the publication of this article, the defense doesn’t seem to have been challenged or even questioned regarding any of the facts.
But why, why, why would (disputed) mistakes and negligence by Benedict XVI before his transformation into a reactionary watchdog who clamped down on abuse, discredit said reactionarism and justify the more progressive course that Ratzinger once supported (when he supposedly failed to counter abuse)? Doesn’t it show Ratzinger was right to move to the right? Instead it seems the Church should move to the more progressive direction Ratzinger adhered to when Archbishop.
Why don’t the UNDISPUTED cover ups by Marx (and fellow ultraprogressive Archbishop Hesse) discredit their modernist agenda? The report implicated Marx in 2 cases (though there were accusations about misconduct by him previously that went ignored). In Marx’s case there is no denying it. No false assumptions were made against him, the cover ups are far more recent and Marx hasn’t done anything like Benedict to fight abuse since. All he has done has been trying to weaponize the abuse he was complicit in for his Far Left agenda and the media let’s him get away with it. Same for Hesse. They want to transform the German Catholic Church to make it similar to the progressive German Protestant church (whose first female bishop had to resign because she had covered up child sexual abuse).
Marx had offered to resign as archbishop (not cardinal or members of Francis’ council) last year before his worst involvement was revealed. He spoke of resigning again after the report but hasn’t actually done so. Might have been awkward for Francis to have to refuse it for a second time with the knowledge we have now. Talking about resigning is an empty political gesture. Fake and manipulative remorse.
“Support my radical revolution Francis or I’ll resign in disgrace for my crimes!” Reinhard Marx basically.
Marx will resign if he becomes a hindrance to the revolutionary synodal agenda though, but the revolutionaries have been rather willing to forgive him. All crimes can be forgiven as long as you embrace the revolution. If you want to make an omelet…
But the hypocritical attacks don’t just stop at baseless assumptions about Benedict XVI having covered up abuse. Cardinal Woelki was assailed for not publishing a report into abuse (that he himself commissioned and that did not implicate him) after being informed of deficiencies of the report. He ordered another and it was published, but the concern for due process and justice over hysteria, that was unforgiveable.
One of the few Archbishop in Germany who has been demonstrated to have neither covered up abuse or failed to act against it, endures far worse attacks than the two archbishops who have indisputably covered up and enabled child sexual abuse. Is it a coincidence that Woelki is the most conservative archbishop?
Leftist Cardinal Hollerich said that he would resign if he were Woelki because while he acknowledges Hollerich did nothing wrong, he lost trust due to miscommunication. He said nothing about Marx having to resign because he actually covered up abuse. Hesse got a similar pass.
Hollerich’s message is clear: Prelates should be left-wingers who are good at charming semi-secularised faithful, if they don’t enable abuse that’s a bonus but that’s not as crucial as being good at PR.
Woelki sucks at PR, and that’s worse than enabling child abuse. Woelki’s mistake was that he didn’t flee forward and use his past apathy towards pederasty to normalise the sexual revolution.
Again, maybe the fact that abuse enablers fight for the synodal path, while abuse fighters oppose it, is a reason to reconsider this whole synodal path, instead of doubling down on it, especially when the progressive protestants have only just recently begun to scratch the service on their abuse scandals. Just something to think about. Maybe abuse enablers aren’t the ones who should reform the Church.
Maybe the abuse reports by the German bishops shouldn’t reference supporters of sex involving kids such as Uwe Sielert, supporter of the infamous child abuser Helmut Kentler. His research is being used at a discussion to reject traditional Catholic theology regarding sexuality and finally get the Church to officially embrace the sexual revolution and that sex is about pleasure and love (eros) and birth control and extramarital sex are totally fine (something the German bishops pretty much argued anyways when they de facto rejected Humanae Vitae and sure they covered up abuse, but that was because the revolution didn’t go far enough, that causes abuse, not the revolution itself).
Before we forget, they also referenced Marxist child abuser Foucault.
But Benedict XVI was stupid for linking child sexual abuse during the 1960s, 70s and 80s to the sexual revolution. It was actually clericalism, celibacy no women being ordained. That is why the evangelical/Lutheran church that embraced birth control, the ordination of women and homosexuality supported the legalisation of paedophilia, together with social scientists like Rüdiger Lautmann, LGBT groups, the Greens, the Free Democratic Party and even state authorities that placed children with known paedophiles. The massive abuse of children in Odenwald was just an anomaly. Same for the intentional grooming and molesting of kids by Marxist groups in the name of fighting sexual repression. The rule is still that sexual repression causes abuse.
But maybe, just maybe, Benedict XVI’s struggle against abuse as both prefect of the CDF and Pope being undermined by the media is a little bit odd.
Maybe the media needs to stop attack bishops who actually fight abuse, start holding accountable those who have covered it up even when they’re ultra-progressive now and finally, reforms aimed at ending or preventing child abuse should not reference paedophilia supporters.
But according to the neo-Marxist ideology that dominates the synod, all abuse is the fault of traditional authorities, of the patriarchy, not of big brother. So if this synodal path succeeds and the Catholic Church becomes like Progressive Protestantism, the abuse will go away like Clinton’s.