Third Post of Friday: The Bishops and Public Penance

The Bishops of England and Wales have urged all Catholics to set aside the four Fridays in May 2010 as special days of prayer (See Fr Blake’s blog, here). In particular, the bishops say:

We invite Catholics on these days to come before the Blessed Sacrament in our parishes to pray to God for healing, forgiveness and a renewed dedication.

It would certainly be a good thing to undertake prayers of reparation for the sins of others. Since, however, it was hardly ever the case that these horrific acts of abuse against children and adolescents were perpetrated by members of the laity, I am concerned that the bishops have not mentioned themselves in connection with this proposal. They must surely be seen to be joining in.

I’d very much like to know how they, together with other senior figures in the clergy and in religious congregations and orders – both current and retired - intend to take part in these days of repentant prayer.

An excellent suggestion was made recently on Beliefnet, which I read via Fr Zuhlsdorf’s blog. A deacon from Alaska has written very well on the subject, making, in particular, the following challenging but warm-hearted proposal:

So here is my question for you. What if our bishops chose to do public penance? What if they lay prostrate or knelt in front of their cathedrals as penitents before each Mass on the weekend closest to the feast of St.Peter and Paul or on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus or some other appropriate day or days? Or, even better, on the first Friday of every month for the next year starting with the feast of the Sacred Heart or Sts.Peter and Paul? And what if we, as their deacons, as an order in the Church, in all humility, not only called on our bishops to do public penance, but offered to join them in it?

What a wonderful suggestion.

Why was the CDF's Kiesle letter leaked on its own?

As Catholic World News reports, there was no context. We have no knowledge as to what background information was provided in support of this priest's petition for laicisation. Is this perhaps a significant omission?

Still experiencing a strange mood in reaction to all the attacks on the Holy Father. Anything may happen next. It is as though his adversaries are slowly circling him, flinging first one thing and then another at him. They do not achieve the primary success they desire, but they are making do with good deal of collateral damage from the falsehoods which are sticking, here and there, like mud, in the minds of the less well-informed among the spectators of this blood-sport.

Reflections at this Difficult Time

Holman Hunt’s The Scapegoat, which I remember seeing on a visit to the Lady Lever Art Gallery in Port Sunlight, on the Wirral, when I lived in the North-West. It drifts into my mind off and on, these days … The thing is, of course, that the goat was an innocent creature, whereas a human scapegoat, being a child of Adam, may bring his own "baggage", whether great or small, to add to the burden.

Conscious of feeling vaguely anxious, even slightly ill, as can be the way at times when someone dear to us is suffering or in trouble and we do not know all the details, or what lies ahead.

It is very good to have the companionship of others in the Catholic blogosphere; to know that we are not alone at this time. Thank you to all who have written so informatively and so comfortingly on the great matters that beset us at present.
There is much pain and distress just now. We think of all those victims; and of those in the Church who made so many errors in their handling of the cases. I put it no more strongly than that; there are some things we may never know about the history of all these things. But I hope enough information comes to light - and soon - to clear the air as well as possible.

Thinking a good deal about my favourite saint, St Peter, that wonderful lion-heart whose courage sometimes failed; and yet Christ knew His man, and chose him to be the Rock in whose shelter His flock would gather against the storm.

Remembering also the noble Good Thief, who acknowledged his guilt, and from his own agony defended the innocent Lord in His agony.

There is a passage in St Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, where he draws an analogy between the flesh of the sacrificed animals, taken outside the camp to be burnt, and the sacrificial death of Christ outside the gate of the city. I am a little inclined to think that St Paul’s analogies are not always a very good fit; but sometimes a phrase can leap out, and give us insight and strength in various situations, which are also not necessarily an exact fit. But I think that’s all right, isn’t it? And in this passage (Chapter 13, verse 14) there is one such, par excellence, and I think very apt at present:

“Let us go to Him, then, outside the camp, and share His degradation. For there is no eternal city for us in this life; but we look for one in the life to come.”

I have come to appreciate more and more the fifth Glorious Mystery of the Rosary: The Coronation of Our Lady in Heaven, and the Glory of all the Saints. We have our friends in Heaven, and we can have unshakeable confidence in Our Lady.

Munich: Some Thoughts on the Sequence of Events

At the heart of this horrible Munich business lie two glaring facts: the suffering of the victims, and the long career of the man who inflicted those outrages on the innocents. I do not intend the slightest minimisation of the centrality of these appalling things.

Having stressed this, I must say that I have been troubled by all the confusing and contradictory assertions regarding the part played – or not played – by the Holy Father in the matter.

I have interwoven the dates – as best they seem to be known at present - of all the reported events relating to the Hullermann case, and the dates of tenure of the successive Archbishops of Munich-Freising from 1977 to the present. Here is the list. Please don't hesitate to point out any mistakes I may have made.

1977 March 24th: Joseph Ratzinger appointed Archbishop of the ecclesiastical province and archdiocese of Munich-Freising. Installed 28th May. Made a Cardinal 27th June.

1980: Fr Hullermann, of the diocese of Essen in the ecclesiastical province of Cologne, is said by some reports to have been allowed by Cardinal Ratzinger into the archdiocese of Munich-Freising, in order to undergo therapy.

At first reading this gives the impression that the arrangement was a temporary measure. But Hullermann appears in fact to have been accepted for formal (and I assume permanent) transfer into the archdiocese. This would explain why he worked from then on, and up to his recent dismissal, in parishes of the Munich archdiocese.

It is not clear whether the decision to accept the transfer of Fr Hullermann from Essen was taken by Cardinal Ratzinger or by a delegated subordinate.

We do not know whether the then-known facts about Hullermann were available to the Cardinal or his delegate at the time of the decision to accept him.

The first reports imply that the arrangements for therapy were made by Essen. If so, they appear to have been confirmed by Munich. Whether or not this is so, shortly after his inward transfer the case notes were studied at Munich, and decisions were made:

- to order Hullermann to undergo therapy; and
- to require him to live at a particular parish house.

It is further reported that H was forbidden to engage in any parochial work. It is said that this order was imposed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

I suppose it is reasonable to assume that this proscription was to be adhered to until the therapy was completed and the report and recommendations were received from the psychiatrist involved in the case; at which time a further decision would be made about H’s future.

1980 (Assumed): The psychiatrist who treated Hullermann is reported as follows:

“I said, 'For God's sake, he desperately has to be kept away from working with children,"' the psychiatrist, Dr. Werner Huth, said in a telephone interview from Munich. "I was very unhappy about the entire story."

Huth said he was concerned enough that he set three conditions for treating the priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann: that he stay away from young people and alcohol and be supervised by another priest at all times.

[A separate media report says that he sent his warnings to the archdiocese at a very early stage in Hullermann's course of therapy.]

Huth said he issued the explicit warnings --both written and oral -- before the future pope, then Joseph Ratzinger, archbishop of Munich and Freising, left Germany for a position in the Vatican in 1982.

[ ...... ]

Despite the psychiatrist's warnings, Hullermann was allowed to return to parish work almost immediately after his therapy began, interacting with children as well as adults. Less than five years later, he was accused of molesting other boys, and in 1986 he was convicted of sexual abuse in Bavaria.

Benedict's deputy at the time, then-Vicar-General Gerhard Gruber, said he was to blame for that personnel decision, referring to what he called "serious mistakes."

The psychiatrist said in an interview that he did not have any direct communications with Ratzinger and did not know whether or not the archbishop knew about his warnings. [My emphasis] Though he said he had spoken with several senior church officials, Huth's main contact at the time was a bishop, Heinrich Graf von Soden-Fraunhofen, who died in 2000.

1981 November 25th: Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed by Pope John Paul II as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and President of the International Theological Commission.

1982 February 15th: The end of Cardinal Ratzinger’s tenure at Munich-Freising.

There followed an interregnum of 8 months.

1982 September (during the interregnum): Hullermann started work as assistant priest at Grafing (Munich-Freising archdiocese).

The then Vicar-General, Fr Gerhard Gruber, claims that he deviated from Cardinal Ratzinger’s residency order, and lifted all restrictions, on his own authority, and without informing the Cardinal.

1982 October 28th: After an interregnum of 8 months, Friedrich Wetter, the Bishop of Speyer, was appointed as the new Archbishop of Munich-Freising. He remained in this post for 24 years, until his retirement in February 2007.

1985 January 29th: Hullermann was relieved of duties at Grafing following a police investigation into suspicions of sexual misconduct.

1986 June: Hullermann was convicted at Ebersberg (near Grafing) of sexual abuse of minors; sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, the sentence being suspended for 5 years.

2007 February 2nd: Archbishop Wetter retired.

There followed an interregnum of nearly 10 months.

2007 November 30th: Reinhard Marx, the Bishop of Trier, became the present Archbishop of Munich-Freising.

2008: It is reported that at some time during this year Hullerman was forbidden to work with children. He appears to have disobeyed the order.

2010 March 15th: After 30 years in the archdiocese, and having worked in a number of parishes, Hullermann was suspended.


It is said that the appalling nature and extent of the child abuse in the Church at large was only borne in on Cardinal Ratzinger some years after his time at Munich, in the light of the things he discovered in the files he read when he was Prefect of the CDF. As regards the specific case of Hullermann, I find it impossible to believe that a person of Pope Benedict's character and temperament and patent goodness would have countenanced any compromise or risk to the young if he had known the situation in 1980 at the time of the transfer.

We do not know how many people were involved in what was no doubt a series of decisions in the progress of this sorry saga. But each of them knows in his heart the part he played; and no doubt there has been much sorrow and repentance, of which we may never know the extent.

Above all, the sinner is responsible for his own evil deeds. All we can say now, perhaps, is that God sees all and knows all.

At the end of all this, the victims remain. They are the ones who matter most.