Papal Hot Water

I'm not an expert on the politics of the Curia, but this seems to have their stamp all over it.

First off, the Pope's words were ill-chosen, and seem to me quite out of character ... but then he's known for being 'outspoken', to the delight of journalists, who often read his comments as turning doctrine on its head, but this seems particularly odd to me.

From what I can gather, this seems to be something of a storm in which the pope sees political elements using the abuse scandal to bring down others against whom there is no material evidence ... I think maybe this might be an in-advised statement reflecting the pope's knowledge of the politics of South America, but on this occasion he might well be wrong.

The local church seems pretty vociferous is saying that the abuses reach further and that those with oversight on the abuser were, to some degree, complicit.

Add to this the Curia. This is the bureaucracy of the Church and, like any bureaucracy, is enormously sensitive of its power and position, and seeks first to protect itself, even at the cost of the victims of, in this case, sexual abuse. As has appeared in the case of Pope Emeritus Benedict, the Curia will find ways to marginalise a pope if he gets in the way.

The appointment of bishops is within the gift of the Curia and this gives them enormous control over the church. Even if the bishop in question is innocent, the right thing to have done would be to appoint another, someone less contentious. As it is, the current appointment is typical of the hierarchy which makes decisions based on its own opinions and does not really take into account the will and wishes of the community.

When I was a student at Maryvale, there was a triumvirate at the head of the institution who founded it and made it what it was, highly respected across the Catholic world: Fr John Redford, Fr Paul Watson and Dr Petroc Wiley, that latter responsible for a very successful parish catechetics training course. With the death of Fr John, and the retirement of Fr Paul, Dr Wiley stepped up as Acting Director. With such a track record he was the obvious choice to take the reins but ... he was not a priest. That would never do ...

Dr Wiley and the senior staff resigned. Dr Wiley is currently at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, which modelled its catechetics programme on that established by Dr Wiley at Maryvale.
 
Ok, the way I read it...

The pope did not protect the accused abuser. He said the bishop was not aware, and until there is proof he is, he was being slandered. Maybe the bishop should have been aware, maybe he was covering up, all that is conjecture.

Unless I missed something, I still see the pope's moves as in the right direction, of protecting the innocent and finding the guilty...

And if there is evidence that comes to light to prove malfeasance, I fully expect this pope to retract, apologize and speak against this man as well
 
I think there's a number of things at play here.

One is that the victims of Fr Karadima, who was found guilty of abuses, also claim the Fr Barros was aware of the abuses ... so it's hard to see why part of a testimony is supported, and yet another part is declared calumny ... and at the very least, the Curia might have thought about the signals it's sending out when it positions a close friend and protegé of the abuser into a position of authority over the abused?

Such abuses are hard to prove, which is why they have gone on so long, and they are harder to bring to justice when there seems to be an institutional cover-up of those abuses when they come to light ... Fr Barros might well be innocent, but he was there.

On a broader note, as i mentioned, there is an element of the Curia, based in Rome, deciding what's best for the congregations, and there is a claim, almost global, that the Curia does not listen to local concerns. Fr Barros was a public supporter of the Pinochet regime, and for that alone would have garnered a fair degree of ill-will among grass-roots communities.

As ever, i can only wonder at the lack of foresight on the part of the Curia not to consider there might be some fallout from such a decision.
 
Back
Top