Benedict sacked bishop for admitting fault in child molestation case?

But Brisbane’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been told of speculation that Rome wanted to get rid of Bishop Morris because of his response to the Byrnes matter.

That response included admissions of responsibility and a subsequent $3 million payout to some of the victims in the civil courts.
www.couriermail.com.au... ihsrf2-1226836007727

Bishop Morris said his dispute with the Vatican and the Pope had earlier roots and was unrelated to the child sex abuse scandal. He said he drew ire in November 2006 when he wrote an open letter about priest shortages, discussing the possibility of the ordination of women and married or widowed men — practices that are not allowed under Catholic canon law.

Bishop Morris said he received a letter back from the Vatican telling him his early retirement would occur on May 2, 2011. He wrote again, asking for the period to be extended to allow him to support the child sexual abuse victims through the compensation process.

www.theaustralian.com.au...

So the official story is that Benedict sacked the bishop because he had suggested they ordain women and married men to address the shortage of priests. But the rumours are that Benedict sacked him because he cost the church $3 million (so far). This bishop did the decent thing and admitted the diocese had not moved to protect children from rape after allegations had been made against Byrnes. This admission of guilt led the way to being sued.

Interesting. There were a couple stories recently about Benedict coming down on the pedos in the church. Which made me think initially he wasn't so bad after all (even though he looks like the chancellor from star wars), but then in my haste, I hadn't considered it was merely political maneuvering to protect the church without actually making up for what had happened.

I submit I know too little about the inner workings to make a judgement on anyone in that cesspool.

reply to post by boncho


I was under the impression that prior to his becoming Pope, herr Ratzinger was instrumental in covering up some of the worst cases of abuse the catholic church had ever seen.

Am I wrong in that impression?

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by boncho

 

I was under the impression that prior to his becoming Pope, herr Ratzinger was instrumental in covering up some of the worst cases of abuse the catholic church had ever seen.

Am I wrong in that impression?

That was the impression I had previously, then there was another story.

Found it.

So when I posted this story I didn't really make a judgement other than I didn't think it fit in with previous allegations. The OP article adds a lot to the saga.

Can't the vatican just be raided for being a criminal organization already, so we can put the corrupt priest issue to rest… and may as well check the archives while there.

boncho
That was the impression I had previously, then there was another story.

Found it.

So when I posted this story I didn't really make a judgement other than I didn't think it fit in with previous allegations. The OP article adds a lot to the saga.

Can't the vatican just be raided for being a criminal organization already, so we can put the corrupt priest issue to rest… and may as well check the archives while there.

edit on 24-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Interesting food for thought which I will ingest in due time. However, 1 story verses quite a number of prior allegations (not to mention his proven Nazi involvement during WW2) does not necessarily get this guy off the hook (first impressions).

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Interesting food for thought which I will ingest in due time. However, 1 story verses quite a number of prior allegations (not to mention his proven Nazi involvement during WW2) does not necessarily get this guy off the hook (first impressions).

Yes, I agree.

reply to post by boncho


Oh my! Getting our hands on the Vatican files! Orgasmic almost.

www.abc.net.au...

Cardinal George Pell named as head of Vatican finances, will relocate to Rome

Australia's most senior Catholic cleric Cardinal George Pell is to leave his post as Archbishop of Sydney and take on a new role at the Vatican. "It's a brand new position that's been created; it's a top level Vatican post," he said.

Notice the bit about relocating to Rome in the headline? He is supposed to be there on the 7th of March. Thing is, he is to appear before the current Australian Royal Commission into the handling of child abuse cases by organizations. Hmmm, coincidence I know.

According to this report, he is going to face the music.


news.ninemsn.com.au...

Catholic priests have condemned the Vatican's choice.

"It's absolutely no surprise that Cardinal Pell has been given a golden parachute by the Vatican to leave the jurisdiction just when things are getting hot at the royal commission," said Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) spokeswoman Nicky Davis.

She said survivors viewed the move as a "a kick in the head, a slap in the face".

"It's not a wonderful honour, it's an escape clause," she said.

She feared Cardinal Pell would keep trying to "close the purse strings to survivors" in his new job.