![\"Why](\"https:\/\/jhcolorpowdercoating.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/672\/2023\/03\/warum-missbrauch-in-der-kirche-ein-thema-fur-die_1.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\nConsent required!Please accept cookies from "simplecast and reload the page to see this content.<\/p>\n
Podcast from 3. March 2022 | Design: Henning Klingen*<\/p>\n
In January, an expert opinion by a Munich law firm led to an ecclesiastical tremor that was and is felt as far away as Austria in the form of heated debates, outrage and church resignations. It is about the expert opinion of the law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl (WSW) on the handling of abuse cases in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising. 1.900 pages documenting clerical and personal misconduct in numerous abuse cases between 1945 and 2019. 235 perpetrators were tracked down, including 173 priests, and 497 victims.<\/p>\n
What dominated the debate in the weeks that followed, however, was one thing above all: the responsibility of Joseph Ratzinger\/Benedict XVI., whose term of office between 1977 and 1982 as Archbishop of Munich falls exactly into the period under investigation. The accusation is that Ratzinger knowingly lied in view of a meeting about a priest and abuser. At the beginning of February, he rowed back and apologized for the oversight.<\/p>\n
But today we do not want to judge Joseph Ratzinger or talk about individual cases of the expert opinion, but about the problem of abuse itself. Abuse – be it physical, be it mental – is an issue for the church as an institution, for its bodies, facilities. But is abuse also an issue for theology?<\/p>\n
I would like to talk about this with my guests today. On the one hand with the Graz church law expert Prof. Sabine Konrad, then with the South Tyrolean moral theologian Prof. Martin Lintner – and finally, with the Viennese pastoral theologian Prof. Regina Polak. A warm welcome!<\/p>\n
Perhaps we should approach the topic with a few clarifications. Ms. Prof. Konrad – first of all: Is it possible to state clearly what is meant when we speak of abuse in the church space?<\/p>\n
![\"Why](\"https:\/\/jhcolorpowdercoating.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/672\/2023\/03\/warum-missbrauch-in-der-kirche-ein-thema-fur-die_2.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\nKonrad: "Yes, there is indeed a very wide range of behavior that can fall under this category. The framework order for the Catholic Church in Austria has made an attempt to define different categories here. Because not all behavior is equally serious. So here there are really gradations in behavior and depending on the degree of severity. Everyone has about a natural boundary around them as protection, which, if crossed, can be hurtful. This marks borderline violations. However, the behavior is not as serious as encroaching behavior. Assaultive behavior would mean that boundary violations happen regularly and increasingly seriously. And then, of course, there is the very serious category of crimes. And here we are at the concept of abuse. There we have spiritual abuse as well as sexual abuse. And here again, you have to distinguish between sexual abuse and sexual violence. This means that physical limits are also strongly exceeded here. Mostly starts light with accidental touches, but it should be judged as a planned act and not accidental. Spiritual abuse is a category that one is still trying to define at the moment. So you know that there is, and by that you understand that by means of religious content or under the appeal to spiritual authority, pressure, bondage and dependencies are created."<\/p>\n
"Church in Austria has done its homework"<\/h3>\n
Is the definition you gave taken from state law, or was that an exposition on the church's legal opinion?<\/p>\n
Konrad: "That was purely in terms of church law, i.e. what the framework order for the Catholic Church has defined in the measures, regulations and guidelines for abuse within the Catholic Church."<\/p>\n
What procedure does church law, does the framework provide for when a case of abuse occurs in the church context?<\/p>\n
Konrad: "Well, this is now a very developed system with different offices. There are various points of contact to which the affected person can turn and who will then act in the way the affected person wishes. So, for example, whether information is passed on to the dioceses, a commission or is passed on to the diocesan bishop or also to the independent victim protection commission that the church has set up. Whether this is passed on is decided by the person affected or the person affected himself. Often the expectations of the victims are very different. Some don't want it to be prosecuted at all, and others want it to be prosecuted at all costs. And sometimes the expectations are that apologies will be made or that the perpetrators will be talked to. But how this is dealt with is decided by the person concerned himself."<\/p>\n
So you can say that the church, at least as far as the legal framework is concerned, has done its homework in the last twelve years since the abuse scandal came to light?<\/p>\n
Konrad: "Yes, I see it that way, that a lot has been done, that through these diocesan commissions, the independent victim protection ombudsman's office, from a purely legal point of view, a lot has happened and that this system also functions well."<\/p>\n
We started in Munich, and this will now be followed by expert opinions in almost all other German dioceses. But the matter is not limited to the German-speaking countries; there are similar cases in other countries as well. In Italy, a database of abuse cases recently went online. 182 pieces are documented there. The Catholic bishops are considering an investigation, it is said. One almost has the impression that Italy is not yet as far advanced as Germany or Austria. Is this impression deceptive, Prof. Lintner?<\/p>\n
![\"Why](\"https:\/\/jhcolorpowdercoating.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/672\/2023\/03\/warum-missbrauch-in-der-kirche-ein-thema-fur-die_3.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\nLintner: "The impression is not deceptive, it is actually the case that Italy is lagging behind and can learn a lot from Austria in particular. I remember very well when the first prevention center against sexual abuse and sexualized violence was established in the diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone 10 years ago. South Tyrol has taken on something like a pioneering role for the entire Italian region. At the time, this caused quite a stir in Italy and the bishop at the time justified it by saying that we are at the interface of cultures and thus, of course, have been positively influenced by what has been going on in Austria for much longer and then also under the pressure of what was set in motion by the Canisius College in Berlin. In the meantime, it is indeed the case that relatively many dioceses in Italy have set up such prevention offices, and only slowly, however, are contact points being established for victims of sexualized violence or sexual abuse. In the meantime there are dioceses that do this, but rather under the impression and pressure of what is happening in other European countries in this sense and not so much in Italy itself. Whereby, as you rightly say, the pressure on the church is now growing from very many affected persons and also lay associations. And the study that you mentioned: here the bishops are still lagging behind a bit, or rather, they are not aware of it. they have some concern that this might bring too much to the surface, but Bassetti has been very cautious: he wants a study now. However, it is still completely open who carries out this study, whether the church itself does this internally, in which just only the reported cases are actually then also worked up. Or whether it should be an independent study, which at the same time also sheds light on the structural background. That is still open at the moment. I hope that the church will then decide for the second."<\/p>\n
Now let's come over the loop to Austria and to Mrs. Prof. Polak. The situation in Germany is also perceived here. Here, too, the exit numbers are rising. But here church representatives refer again and again to the Klasnic Commission, which was appointed by Cardinal Schonborn in 2010. In Austria, the reaction has been quick and victim-centered. That's why we don't really need a law firm like the one in Munich, which works things up externally: That is the narrative that is followed in Austria. Is this actually sincere? Does this calculation work? Is Austria really such a pioneer??<\/p>\n
Polak: "Abuse is an eminently theological issue"<\/h3>\n
Polak: "I believe that Austria is indeed a pioneer in terms of this structural reappraisal with regard to the Klasnic Commission and its rapid action. The second part of what you said, I'm not quite of the same opinion, because that can of course also lead to the fact that the entire topic of abuse is externalized, so to speak, and presented as a problem of individuals. So this structural form of coming to terms with abuse still has a huge shadow, which I generally regard as problematic. I believe that the issue of abuse is one that the whole church needs to address. It is not only a structural question, it is also an eminently theological question, because sexual abuse very often occurs in connection with spiritual abuse, even if the latter is not so clearly defined. But if you take a closer look at the history leading up to violent assaults, for example, there are regularly spiritual relationships that are associated with spiritual and thus also with theological statements. And if you look at it closely, you will see that the images of God associated with it, the ideas of what a priest is, are no longer found in the context of abuse, but are also found in normal pastoral work. So in this respect, yes, I think Austria has a pioneering role. There is a lot to learn here, and I believe that the entire commission has done some excellent things. It would also be interesting to evaluate this scientifically in order to learn more and to communicate what has been learned to other countries."<\/p>\n
I would like to make a second attempt with regard to the Klasnic Commission and pose a provocative question or thesis: In Germany, the result or the special feature of the report in Munich has been that a reversal of the view has taken place. In Austria one looks very strongly and quite rightly at the victims and what happened to them. In Germany, the next step has now been taken with the expert report and the focus is now on the perpetrators. I have the impression that this is not being done in Austria, or not yet, and that this is not the task of the Klasnic Commission. Therefore, the question is: Do we perhaps need such an external expert opinion in order to focus on the question of the perpetrator in Austria??<\/p>\n
Konrad: "Yes, you are absolutely right, that the Klasnic Commission and also the diocesan commissions all have the victims in mind. This is the perspective. And it is also not the goal to determine the individual guilt of perpetrators. The commissions do not do that, but the victims have a point of contact here and are heard. And attempts are being made to provide them with help, financial aid or therapeutic assistance. The perpetrators are really not taken into consideration by them. And what makes these commissions so special is that the victims are also given the opportunity to open up and to approach the authorities in a safe environment. From a purely legal point of view, an external expert opinion is an individual or private expression of opinion. It is not an expert opinion commissioned by a court. In this respect, the consequences drawn are purely individual. So it's up to each person to decide how to deal with it: one person leaves the church, the other, who is perhaps a person with responsibility in the church, thinks about which structures we need to change so that this no longer happens? So in this respect: it can open one's eyes, depending on the position one holds. And therefore I think in this situation it is always good to illuminate and look at new perspectives as well."<\/p>\n
![\"Why](\"https:\/\/jhcolorpowdercoating.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/672\/2023\/03\/warum-missbrauch-in-der-kirche-ein-thema-fur-die_4.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\nPolak: "A very Austrian solution, then, yes, which I also consider valuable. But I would also say critically: There is also a culture in Austria that people don't like to talk about things, that topics like guilt and responsibility are not the favorite topics of the whole society. You don't like to do that even in the ecclesiastical space. At the moment, I also understand it when you look at the real media agitation that you can observe in Germany, where you sometimes don't necessarily have the feeling that it's about the matter at hand, but rather that the church is becoming a projection screen for a problem that society has as well. I would also wish that other social institutions would have taken up the abuse issue in the same way. I can understand why they are very hesitant, because they don't want to aggravate this church crisis. But from a theological perspective, I think it's problematic if you don't also name the deeds. Of course, it is not about stigmatization or about a kind of 'spitting out' these persons. But it is actually part of our Christian tradition to call a spade a spade and then find ways: How to deal with forgiveness? How to deal with reconciliation? How does someone take responsibility? How does it look with the repentance? For me, this is another example of how we generally deal with the whole issue of guilt and responsibility in the church. I'm missing something here, and it's not about demonizing perpetrators. And also this is actually a matter of the whole church. And there is also an interest of believers in this. I must say that I am missing something here, but moral theology certainly knows more about guilt and forgiveness. "<\/p>\n
Lintner: "Protecting victims, naming perpetrators and responsibility"<\/h3>\n
Lintner: "Well, I think that first of all this development, that the church has taken the victims into consideration, is to be appreciated positively. Because it has dealt with itself and with its own perpetrators long enough, unfortunately in the sense of protecting perpetrators, so that this step and this sensitivity that we have, to take the victims into consideration, to take their suffering into consideration, to ask ourselves: How can we do justice to them?? – In my opinion, the Klasnic Commission has done all this, and this is to be appreciated. However evenly in the course of the reappraisal it goes naturally also around the question: Who takes over for what responsibility? And for me it has been extremely interesting to observe this whole debate in relation to Joseph Ratzinger. In my opinion, two things should have been clearly differentiated here: First, that one really establishes from the objective perspective and also tries to understand and investigate how it came to certain wrong decisions, for which he of course bears the responsibility in his office at that time as Archbishop of Munich. There is nothing to shake: At that time he had the ultimate responsibility for the use of priests in his diocese. Regardless of whether he now knew or not: what happened in the church was yes, if I think now, for example, the treatment of divorced and remarried: Especially under the pontificate of John Paul II. and of Benedict XVI. it has always been the case that people have said: This objective fact, this is the essential one and this is the decisive one. The other, the personal, the subjective dimension, we do take that into account, but at the level of consequences, what is decisive is what can be determined objectively. Whereas now, suddenly, in dealing with this expert opinion in Munich, the matter is completely turned around. I mean, I can't know whether Ratzinger was personally guilty or not at that time. He can only confess this himself. And I must believe it then or not. And one could only hope that more and more perpetrators would accept this responsibility. Also those who bear joint responsibility, that they really name the things where they say: Here I have not fulfilled my responsibility. And name it concretely. This general confession of guilt that we all pray in the service is not enough. And that, I believe, has also quite rightly caused an outrage. With quite many also on the second explanation, which the emeritus pope has delivered then here once more."<\/p>\n
When theology takes on pathological forms<\/h3>\n
We have already touched on some theological paradigms: Mrs. Polak has pointed out that spiritualities can become pathological. Does it actually mean that theology itself still has homework to do??<\/p>\n
Polak: "I would be satisfied if much of what has long been known in theology were received accordingly. So I mean, theology always has to do homework, because we don't have finalized, definitive 'Everlasting Truth' either. What one probably has to take note of is that even a study of theology as such does not yet automatically lead to a change in the spirituality that one brings with it. What we probably have to be much more aware of is that in our lecture halls there are people with different spiritualities, where there is also spirituality that can be problematic and perhaps also pathological. And that one must also reckon with the fact that in our lecture halls sit students who themselves have experiences with abuse."<\/p>\n
Lintner: "I think that a very important aspect is that we have to perceive, recognize and admit our own responsibility with regard to the fact that very many people not only become alienated from the church and leave it, for example by leaving the church, but are also hindered in their faith. I still vividly remember how Cardinal Schonborn spoke of God-poisoning in connection with sexual abuse in the Church ten years ago, referring to the victims who are prevented from having a positive relationship with their faith, with God, often for decades, if not for their entire lives. And here I think of what Vatican II said in Gaudium et Spes with regard to atheism: that there is also an atheism that is the responsibility of the Church, of us as a community of faith. Well, I believe that it is our task as a church to keep at it and to make amends for our mistakes and our guilt, if that is possible."<\/p>\n
With that, they have already headed for the curve to the final round. If you could look ahead a little bit, do you see any light at the end of the tunnel?? So there is light at the end of the tunnel in that justice is done to the victims, perpetrators are punished ecclesiastically or secularly, are brought to justice. And the church as an institution emerges purified or different in some way? Is the synodal process that is now underway a glimmer of hope for you??<\/p>\n
Lintner: "So, if I may get into the answer to this question: I personally actually believed that we are further along, but the debate at the moment in many dioceses in Germany and, as I also said at the beginning, with regard to Italy, I actually see how much resistance there still is. I see with very many bishops, but also with simple faithful very many fears and see simply still a bloody hard way before us lie. And in a special way, what also shakes me again and again: the encounter with those affected, when they confide in spiritual conversations that the church is not able to credibly convey the impression that it is actually striving to do everything possible, on the one hand, to provide prevention, but also to really just come to terms with the injustice that has been inflicted by church. There is a lot of lip service, it is not yet quite credible in many areas here."<\/p>\n
"I thought we were further along on these issues"<\/h3>\n
Polak: "I absolutely agree with that. I perceive this very similarly. When the church realizes what a shakeup this actually is for us in every way, and when it remembers its own tradition that the truth will make us free, so to speak, taking its own faith and God seriously. And that means: you can and may name guilt and responsibility without fearing that you are thereby banished for all time – if she could remember this inheritance, then even this drama, which is far from over, can be an opportunity to learn something and develop further. But it will not be easy. And I actually find this resistance to be a sign of quite a bit of mistrust as well: The fear of naming guilt must be so unbelievably great that it obviously can't be done. Obviously, people don't trust their own tradition there."<\/p>\n
Konrad: "Yes, I can only agree that I also think that the truth is what now really needs to be explored and worked through and that there is also a long process ahead of us. Without really working through this, we will not be able to make a fresh start. As far as the synodal process is concerned, I am convinced that if we make good use of this opportunity, this process can also take us forward. But I would really like to emphasize that: We must do this wisely. We must not want to overshoot the mark, but it must really be seen realistically. What can be our next steps? How can we create more participation for lay people and for the people of God? The church already gives us a lot of possibilities through the existing structures, which can be expanded. And if we do this wisely, I think it's a particularly good opportunity for the church to move into the future."<\/p>\n
This is what Sabine Konrad, canon lawyer at the University of Graz, says. And that's it again with this new episode of This Side of Eden. Thank you for listening says Henning Klingen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Consent required!Please accept cookies from "simplecast and reload the page to see this content. Podcast from 3. March 2022 | […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n