Another abuse report – but this one could become historic: This Thursday, the Westpfahl Spilker Wastl (WSW) law firm is presenting its long-awaited investigation into how those responsible deal with cases of sexual violence in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising. Of particular interest in the more than 1000-page report are the apparently very detailed answers of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. On 82 pages he answered questions from the lawyers, his private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, said last week image– newspaper said. “He welcomes the processing in Munich and the publication of the report,” said Gänswein. The fate of the victims of abuse was “very heartfelt” to him.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982. Even if the term of office was short, the transfer of priest Peter H. from Essen to Munich took place during this time. H. should – according to an internal decree of the Munich church court from 2016, which Southgerman newspaper could see – had already abused children in his home diocese, later he was sent to the Archdiocese of Munich for therapy purposes, where he again committed assaults and was also sentenced to criminal prosecution.
This case is one of the best-known and most serious cases of abuse in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising Southgerman newspaper unveiled it in 2010. At the time, the international press discussed how much Ratzinger, meanwhile on the throne of Peter, knew. At that time, the Vicar General at the time, Gerhard Gruber, assumed sole responsibility for the use of Priest H. in pastoral care.
Three archbishops were responsible when Peter H. was in action in the archdiocese: in addition to Ratzinger, Cardinal Friedrich Wetter and Cardinal Reinhard Marx. For this reason alone it can be assumed that the case will play a central role in the report. It was not until 2010 that H. was withdrawn from pastoral care. Today he lives under conditions in the diocese of Essen. These would also be continuously monitored, it says there.
Munich investigators have received new material and are examining 42 cases
The Munich I public prosecutor’s office has already taken action on the basis of the research by the WSW law firm. In August of last year, the WSW law firm provided her with material on 41 cases in which the experts believed there had been misconduct on the part of church officials. This was explained by the public prosecutor’s office at the request of the SZ. Another case was added in November. Among the 42 cases was the case of priest Peter H. “The 42 cases relate exclusively to those responsible for the church who are still alive and were transmitted in a highly anonymous form,” the public prosecutor said. If, on this basis, there were any suspicions that church officials had committed a criminal offence, separate preliminary investigations would be initiated.
The report was originally expected to be published in the summer of 2021. The law firm justified the postponement in November with “new findings” that had to be checked. The report will be presented this Thursday at 11 a.m. in the Haus der Bayerischen Wirtschaft in Munich. The presentation will also be streamed live on the Internet, where it will also be available on sz.de. The law firm then intends to publish the text on its website. According to the lawyers, those responsible for the diocese only found out about the content at the same time as the public. The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, for its part, has invited to a press conference for Thursday in a week’s time in order to take a position “after an initial examination”.
In December 2010, the chancellery had already prepared a study for the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, but only Archbishop Marx and the then Vicar General Peter Beer were able to read the entire text. At the time, the diocese leadership referred to data protection as justification. In addition to a report for the diocese of Aachen, WSW also prepared the first report on abuse for the archdiocese of Cologne, which was then withdrawn by Archbishop Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki. At the time, Woelki asserted methodological deficiencies and problems with the right to expression.