The Catholic Church does not talk about child abuse in... Norway?!

[Cheetah]

So, yeah, even in Norway.

Lots of Norwegian links, my English summary below:
Bishop confessed to sexual assault on altarboy
Catholic bishop in Trondheim confessed to sexual abuse of altarboy (NRK)
Catholic bishop in Trondheim confessed to sexual abuse (Dagbladet)

Police was notified before Christmas, investigation had very low priority until story hit the news today (NRK)
The Church admits to having been silent about other cases of abuse (Dagbladet)
Police is interrogating leaders in the Church in child abuse case (Dagbladet)
The Church will not alert the police if new cases of abuse appear (Dagbladet)

Some background info:
Catholicism was only allowed back in the country in 1843, there is about 51,000 Norwegian catholics and 150,000 catholic guest workers here.

After the recent cases of child abuse in the Catholic Church, their leaders in Norway have commented that the church probably should have been more open about its investigations. What they didn't say, was that they were silent about such cases in Norway!

The main case:
20 years ago Georg Müller was a catholic priest in Trondheim, Norway, and sexually abused an altarboy. The boy is now over 30, and does not wish for his identity to be known, but sought 500,000 kr ($80,000 USD) in damages for his abuse. The Church kept it secret and investigated, and Müller, who had then become a bishop, was ordered to leave his position, and is now praying and whatever else to redeem his sins... He also swears that there are no further victims. Müller resigned publicly from his position last year, sighting mutual disagreement within the administration. Apparently he ended up in Rome. For the time being, nobody seems to know where he is however...

Furthermore:
It has become clear that the Catholic Church in Norway have investigated at least two other cases of child abuse without alerting the authorities. Those cases apparently happened in the 50's, and the priests involved are now deceased.

The police was alerted about a rumoured case of child abuse in the church last year, but the investigation had very low priority until news of the abuse was publicised today. They are now investigating, and even though the case have several similarities with the reported one (including Georg Müller), they do not know if it is in fact the same case.

The Church on the other hand, state that if they are alerted about new cases of child abuse, they will not report it to the police! They believe that is a task for the victim...

..................................

With the continual revelations of new cases of child abuse, it's almost as if Catholisism is starting to become synonymous with pedophilia...

 

[Masada]

The Church on the other hand, state that if they are alerted about new cases of child abuse, they will not report it to the police! They believe that is a task for the victim...

I can kind of understand the logic. I probably wouldn't report the rape of a friend if I was expressly asked not to by the victim. I would council that person to go to the police but I don't believe that such a personal matter is mine to report. But for an institution like the Catholic Church to not report it considering its history, seems, well dubious at best. I'm relatively sure that I could act in my friends best interest but the Church, as a self interested entity, probably couldn't be trusted to do it. Hell, there have been cases where the Church has counseled the person against going to the police. I just don't see now how they justify that position, it isn't in of itself morally reprehensible but the potential implications of following that line, taking into account the nature of their experiences with the issue, would seem to strongly suggest that not doing anything is effectively allowing it to be tacitly swept under the carpet. A commitment to full and frank disclosure would be most desirable but a guarantee to report abuse to the police should be done at the minimum. I could understand reluctance on the part of the Church to report spurious abuse accusations but I don't see how it applies in these kinds of cases where the verdict is effectively open and shut.

 

[warpus]

The Church on the other hand, state that if they are alerted about new cases of child abuse, they will not report it to the police! They believe that is a task for the victim...

Man, anytime it is discovered that a case of sexual abuse was NOT brought to the Police, the people covering up this crap up should be fined and jailed.

I don't care if your organization is the Pancake lovers association of Alabama, the Popeye Lookalikes of Afghanistan, or the Catholic Church, when allegations of sexual abuse arise, they should be brought to the police no matter what.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Man, anytime it is discovered that a case of sexual abuse was NOT brought to the Police, the people covering up this crap up should be fined and jailed.

I don't care if your organization is the Pancake lovers association of Alabama, the Popeye Lookalikes of Afghanistan, or the Catholic Church, when allegations of sexual abuse arise, they should be brought to the police no matter what.

The Evuhl Smoking Santa speaks obvious truth!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I can kind of understand the logic. I probably wouldn't report the rape of a friend if I was expressly asked not to by the victim. I would council that person to go to the police but I don't believe that such a personal matter is mine to report. But for an institution like the Catholic Church to not report it considering its history, seems, well dubious at best. I'm relatively sure that I could act in my friends best interest but the Church, as a self interested entity, probably couldn't be trusted to do it. Hell, there have been cases where the Church has counseled the person against going to the police. I just don't see now how they justify that position, it isn't in of itself morally reprehensible but the potential implications of following that line, taking into account the nature of their experiences with the issue, would seem to strongly suggest that not doing anything is effectively allowing it to be tacitly swept under the carpet. A commitment to full and frank disclosure would be most desirable but a guarantee to report abuse to the police should be done at the minimum. I could understand reluctance on the part of the Church to report spurious abuse accusations but I don't see how it applies in these kinds of cases where the verdict is effectively open and shut.

I think it's further understandable if what a Catholic told me is true that there were several dozen cases where they did report it to the secular authorities and the secular authorities declined to prosecute.

 

[trader/warrior]

WTH. There is only around 50,000 Catholics in Norway and it's that common here too? Especially if what Erik says is true.

What are these priests thinking? If you are so desperate you'll do a crime for sex buy yourself a prostitute for gods sake. Or are they really all all-out pedophiles, and if so, how did this worldwide pedophile conspiracy to infiltrate the Catholic church pass unnoticed? It must be the celibacy... Why have they stuck on to that rule, anyway?

 

[naterator]

The Church on the other hand, state that if they are alerted about new cases of child abuse, they will not report it to the police! They believe that is a task for the victim...

The biggest problem here (besides the institutionalized child rape that got them into this mess, of course) is that the victim has already been sworn to secrecy, under penalty of automatic excommunication. So this poor molested boy is told he'll go to hell forever if he ever tells anyone.

As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.
-----
I do promise, vow and swear that I will maintain inviolate secrecy about each and every thing brought to my knowledge in the performance of my aforesaid function, excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect … and that I will never directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff
-----
...The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncung [the priest] and the witnesses.

 

[Grisu]

The Church on the other hand, state that if they are alerted about new cases of child abuse, they will not report it to the police! They believe that is a task for the victim...

Yeah, this is apparently the policy of the catholic church in Switzerland as well. Simply appalling.

And when they're rightfully attacked for those policies, they act as if they are the victims in this story, which leads to even more insulting remarks like those from Sodano

 

[warpus]

And then they're confused when people leave the church..

 

[RedRalph]

Same old. Anyone who would leave their kids alone with a priest these days is crazy.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

It must be the celibacy

Mustn't. Child abuse happens in (American) public schools too at comparable* rates, but I'm quite sure teachers aren't sworn to celibacy, though.

*Very little data is available, the studies I've seen have reported from "less than half" to "four times as much" with small sample sizes. Schools aren't hierarchical, organized or centralized enough for it to merit much attention, apparently. Also the unions stonewall just as much as the RCC.

The biggest problem here (besides the institutionalized child rape that got them into this mess, of course) is that the victim has already been sworn to secrecy, under penalty of automatic excommunication. So this poor molested boy is told he'll go to hell forever if he ever tells anyone.

I'm not sure about that. On the wiki article for the document:

Unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit procedural warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13), no ecclesiastical penalties were to be imposed on the accuser(s) and witnesses. "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."[7]

And from a catholic: http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm

From the beginning, it’s been difficult to explain to non-Catholics the distinction between canon law and civil law, and that when the church imposes secrecy in canonical proceedings, that’s meant to be in addition to, not instead of, cooperation with civil and criminal investigations. That a correspondent who’s not been carefully following the story tripped over this point does not, at least prima facie, prove that CBS was guilty of defamation or deception.

Meanwhile, I have a question.

Is there anyone that can be pointed to as being at noteworthy fault other than the specific molestor priests? (Preferably with a reliable source.)

I've tried to read about the issue and gotten a whole host of contradictions. Major variants include
-It was JP2 who covered it up when the bishops started complaining
-No, JP2 is being thrown under the bus for being ignorant, the bishops were covering it up
-JP2 is being thrown under the bus by B16, who was the one blocking the complaints
-B16 was himself blocked by opposing cardinals, he's doing his best to fix it now
etc.

 

[naterator]

Is there anyone that can be pointed to as being at noteworthy fault other than the specific molestor priests? (Preferably with a reliable source.)

How about bishops who shuffled them from one congregetion to another instead of dealing with the issue? there are plenty.

Maybe the cardinals who condoned and covered up for such behavior? again, not tough to find a few.

Or maybe the top official in charge of such things in the RCC at the time? hint: it starts with a rat and rhymes with "singer"

Also we could just admit that it was a total organizational failure at every level and the organization is at fault as well.

Also, i hear this defense a lot:

From the beginning, it’s been difficult to explain to non-Catholics the distinction between canon law and civil law, and that when the church imposes secrecy in canonical proceedings, that’s meant to be in addition to, not instead of, cooperation with civil and criminal investigations.

This is not how it was understood within the church at the time, if it were, the authorities would have always been involved and there would be no scandal. Besides, it is all way over the head of a child rape victim, who has just given an oath of secrecy under penalty of excommunication and the eternal damnation that comes with it.

 

[Masada]

I think it's further understandable if what a Catholic told me is true that there were several dozen cases where they did report it to the secular authorities and the secular authorities declined to prosecute.

If that's the case, then I can indeed understand it. But even-so, it's still a terrible choice on the Church's part. They should be frank and disclose these kinds of things -- even if its only to a select police task force or something. The public doesn't need to know the nitty gritty of every possible incident, but they should at least be comfortable that the Church is keeping a line open and is acting is committed to full and frank disclosure.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

How about bishops who shuffled them from one congregetion to another instead of dealing with the issue? there are plenty.

Maybe the cardinals who condoned and covered up for such behavior? again, not tough to find a few.

Or maybe the top official in charge of such things in the RCC at the time? hint: it starts with a rat and rhymes with "singer"

Also we could just admit that it was a total organizational failure at every level and the organization is at fault as well.

Also, i hear this defense a lot:


This is not how it was understood within the church at the time, if it were, the authorities would have always been involved and there would be no scandal. Besides, it is all way over the head of a child rape victim, who has just given an oath of secrecy under penalty of excommunication and the eternal damnation that comes with it.

I don't consider the NYT a reliable source on this issue after their machine translation flub that apparently turned something like "should be strongly censured" into "should be strictly secret". Using Yahoo!Translate on a "smoking gun" memo is pathetic and strongly suggests that they're looking for any stick to beat the RCC with.

I agree on Sean Brady since he seems to be self-incriminating.

In response to blaming Ratzinger for not defrocking someone while not being Pope (??) I keep seeing pieces like this:

Forward:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”​

Maybe you are hearing about another case in Arizona of a long process/trial of a priest who abused children. Once again, the media and others are trying to use this long and drawn out canonical process as a flail with which to beat the Pope.

Again, the abuse took place decades ago.
He was suspended.
There was a canonical trial.It was referred to Rome, the CDF, because it concerned a case of the confessional.
It was determined that he should be dismissed from the clerical state.
The priest appealed.
The appeal process was drawn out for several years because the laws and canonical process of these clerical cases was being overhauled.
Card. Ratzinger was the one who led the charge for the changes to streamline the process.
When the new procedures went into effect, the Holy See moved swiftly to dismiss him from the clerical.
Once again this is a case of lawyers for victims who gave the documents (obviously incomplete) to the Associated Press.

Great, huh?

This is very much like the pattern of the case in Milwaukee.

We have this also from an AP story:

The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented.

He said the delay in defrocking Teta was caused by a hold on appeals while the Vatican changed regulations over its handling of sex abuse cases. In the meantime, he said, cautionary measures were in place; Teta had been suspended since 1990.

"The documents show clearly and positively that those in charge at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith … have repeatedly intervened actively over the course of the 90s so that the canonic trial under way in the Tucson diocese could dutifully reach its conclusion," Lombardi said in a statement.​

[...continued]

The Vatican looks secretive and the media looks agenda-driven. I've been trying sites like GetReligion meanwhile. But every side keeps contradicting the other and they constantly seem to have a legitimate basis for saying "you left out so-and-so which is relevant to the case..."

 

[Grisu]

Mustn't. Child abuse happens in (American) public schools too at comparable* rates, but I'm quite sure teachers aren't sworn to celibacy, though.

err, is mustn't really the term you were looking for? Or were you just trying to negate his 'must'?

 

[Cheetah]

Some more news:
French priests accused of sexual abuse of children in Norway (Dagbladet)
French priests accused of sexual abuse of children in Norway (Aftenposten)

Two French priests, aged 68 and 69, belonging to the church Saint-Martin de Canteleu in Normandy, are being investigated by French police for child molestation, possession of child pornography, and at least two cases of sexual abuse of Norwegian children. The Norwegian cases supposedly happened in the late 70's or early 80's. The French cases apparently happened in 92 and 93, and involves at least 5 French children.

And of the late bishop in Trondheim:
Müller still gets his salary from Norway (Dagbladet)
Müller is hiding amongst nuns (Dagbladet)

Georg Müller still gets paid a salary of about 8000 kr ($1,350 USD) a month from the Catholic Church. He is currently living in a Nun-monastery in Osnabrück in Germany, where he has a free apartment. He's held about 10 public masses in a nearby chapel. The Germans claims they knew nothing of the child abuse in Norway, at that they have no idea who served in the masses (which can have been both adults and children)...

And finally: The leading Catholic bishop in Norway today told news media that several new cases of abuse by priests and bishops have been reported after yesterdays revelations, but that they have not yet had time to look into any of the cases.

 

[GenMarshall]

With the continual revelations of new cases of child abuse, it's almost as if Catholisism is starting to become synonymous with pedophilia...

That is what I am afraid that is what is going to happen soon .

 

[Cheetah]

A Catholic priest in Norway who was almost raped twice 20 years ago (NRK)

My short summary:

Reidar Voith, who is a priest in Porsgrunn, is himself one of the victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

20 years ago he was a student and for some reason was traveling with a priest in his congregation. While staying a night at a hotel, he finds out that instead of two single rooms, the priest had booked a double room.

"He threw himself over me, held me down, licked me in the face and tried to get under the blanket. I managed to kick him away."

Voith was later believed when he told about this to other people in the church. He chose not to report the incident to the police, and the priest was moved to some other area. He has put the incident behind him now.

"I asked to be believed and to have the priest moved. Today I'm a priest myself. I guess that says everything about what the Church's men has thought."

Let's all be quiet, let's move the priest somewhere else, and let's all pretend nothing will ever happen again...

And since I find it rather cryptic, can someone tell me what the Church's men has been thinking??

 

[plarq]

Can I convert to Catholic and apply for bishop position?

 

[Leifmk]

WTH. There is only around 50,000 Catholics in Norway and it's that common here too? Especially if what Erik says is true.

Note also that a good number of those 50 thousand are recent-ish immigrants or children of same (lots of Vietnamese, etc.), and the abuse cases that have come to light now are so old that most of those hadn't come here yet, so there were even fewer.