X

Ball point pen on todays newsprint

Rev. Peter Hullermann is finally suspended from the Roman Catholic Church. Two years ago Pope Benedict visited the US and claimed that ridding the church of pedophile priests was on the top of his agenda. But 30 years after a German court convicted Rev. Peter Hullermann of molesting boys, the priest who worked in the popes own diocese, continued to work with children.

5 Comments
  1. March 16, 2010 -

    We were discussing this this past weekend. Makes me nuts...I'll stop there. ;))

  2. March 16, 2010 -

    Me too Sue. Todays story ends with Father Frania saying that people should practice forgiveness toward him. "If we can no longer believe in forgiving sins, we might as well close the whole store." Agreed, but forgiving a sin is not the same as continuing to facilitate the sin.

  3. Pat D
    March 16, 2010 -

    I agree.

  4. Catherine U
    March 17, 2010 -

    Some reports said that the Pope, when Archbishop, had authorized the transfer of Hullermann for treatment (Hullermann then after treatment was returned to practice and abused more children). A lower official has now assumed full responsibility - but what the story indicated to me is that: a) the Pope believes that pedophelia is treatable; b) the Pope has not commanded his subordinates (all of them)to report suspected pedophilia to local police authorities and let them deal with it. When the RC church decides to treat its priests, as if they have a mental illness, then it can claim due diligence - it can say, well we didn't have reasonable gounds to suspect child abuse, not enough reliable evidence, so we did the best we could - we tried to treat the guy. It's morally reprehensible. And really, i think it's a spin to avoid the law and so is conspiracy to commit a crime and assisting in the commission of a crime. And, I think that any head of state whois primarily the head of a church should not receive immunity where the allegation is respecting a criminaal office - or, at minimum, a criminal offence committed on a child (child at the time of the offence, not of the discovery). Courts have inherent jurisdiction to protect children in every state and we shouldn't give any of that inherent jurisdiction up in matters involving minor children.

  5. March 17, 2010 -

    Thank you Catherine for your thoughtful post