On the very day of publishing the abuse report commissioned by the Archdiocese of Munich by the law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl (WSW), on prime time TV, the verdict on Benedict XVI was pronounced by state media: Guilty. However, there is a lack of evidence. To be precise, there is not a shred of evidence whatsoever.
Newsroom (24/01/2022 1:15 PM Gaudium Press) The court of public opinion seeks to destroy [the former Archbishop of Munich and Freising] Pope Emeritus Benedict. Why? He is an obstacle that needed removing to clear the way for changing the Church from the ground up. The facts do not lend themselves to a condemnation of Pope Benedict XVI. On the very day of publishing the abuse report commissioned by the Archdiocese of Munich by the law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl (WSW), on prime time TV, the verdict on Benedict XVI was pronounced by state media: Guilty. However, there is a lack of evidence. There is not a shred of evidence whatsoever, to be precise.
Nevertheless, public opinion followed the mandate of the Munich Tribunal, which, though a legal office and no court, claimed wholeheartedly that the archbishop emeritus of Munich had very probably known about priests in active ministry being guilty of abuse. Indeed, if the WSW legal offices had in fact been a regular court, the “accused” Benedict XVI would have been acquitted for lack of evidence.
Cardinal Ratzinger was one of the first to recognize in Rome, more than 20 years ago, that the abuses and the cover-up in the Catholic Church could not be allowed to continue. As pope, he then initiated the turnaround that Pope Francis is now continuing. After the pre-condemnation by the media public on Thursday, righteous people are now beginning to actually read WSW’s assessment and Ratzinger’s statement. It is only conjectured that the then Archbishop of Munich might have learned of abusers during his tenure. For example, during the ordinariate meeting of January 15, 1980. Obviously, Benedict’s comments on this point are incorrect. Ratzinger was present at the meeting. From what one hears from Rome, this will be rectified. But does this also already mean that the matter of [Father] H.’s appointment was discussed at all in the meeting? Neither the minutes of the meeting nor contemporaries provide any proof whether the archbishop at the time knew who exactly had come to his diocese and of his previous history.
Press Release from Archbishop Dr. Georg Gänswein
Archbishop Dr. Georg Gänswein, private secretary to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, said today in Rome:
“Since Thursday afternoon, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has had the report of the Munich law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl, which was presented on the same day, available to him as a PDF file.
At present, he is carefully reading the statements set down there, which fill him with shame and pain about the suffering inflicted on the victims.
Even if he tries to read the report quickly, he asks for understanding that the complete review will take some time due to his age and health, but also due to the large volume of the report. There will be a statement on the report.
However, he would like to make it clear now that, contrary to what was stated at the hearing, he did attend the Ordinariate meeting on January 15, 1980.
The statement to the contrary was therefore objectively incorrect. He would like to emphasize that this was not done out of bad faith, but was the result of an oversight in the editing of his statement. He will explain how this happened in the statement that is still to be issued. He is very sorry for this mistake and asks to be excused. Objectively correct, however, remains the statement, documented by the files, that in this meeting no decision was made about a pastoral assignment of the priest in question. Rather, only the request to provide him with accommodation during his therapeutic treatment in Munich was granted.
Benedict XVI is close to his former archdiocese and home diocese, especially in these days, and is very attached to it in its efforts to clarify the situation. He is especially thinking of the victims who had to experience sexual abuse and indifference.”
Compiled by Saju Hasmukth
