Munich Cardinal Friedrich Wetter (93), emeritus, commented on the opinion of the Westpfahl Chancellery Spilker Wastl (WSW) on the handling of cases of abuse in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising. From his retirement home in the Munich mother house of the Sisters of Mercy, he had two texts (declaration and statement) distributed via a nun, which we reproduce here in full.
Statement by Archbishop em. Cardinal Friedrich Wetter on the WSW report, submitted on January 25, 2022: “In my 25-year tenure as archbishop (1982 to 2008), the WSW report has attested to ‘misconduct’ in 21 cases. This was based on the evaluation of my written answers to the chancellery in the run-up to the report. My representation of the Facts in these 21 cases comes to a different conclusion. As archbishop emeritus, I sincerely apologize for everything that happened and for my wrong decision in the case of Pastor H. with regard to pastoral care. That ‘historically’ considered the state of knowledge before 40 years was even more optimistic about the treatability of a perpetrator, that the victims and the affected families and parishes were not heard enough or not enough and that one did not want to harm the church are mistakes that should no longer be made.
I am heartily sorry for what was not recognized during my tenure. With the knowledge of today, I and other responsible persons in the archdiocese would certainly have acted differently. A self-purification is underway throughout the Church, beginning with a confession of guilt, as we as believers ask of God and man for our ‘thoughts, words and works’ in the celebration of the Eucharist.”
Statement by Archbishop em. Cardinal Friedrich Wetter on the abuse report on his 25-year tenure: “On January 17, 2022, the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising commissioned the document ‘Sexual Abuse of Minors and Adult Protégés by Clerics and Full-time Employees in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising from 1945 to 2019’. It also examined my tenure as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and asked about my personal responsibility. Many rightly expect an opinion from me, which I would now like to give after taking note of the report.
1. I am accused of ‘misconduct in 21 counts’ in the press. The fact is: I was interviewed by the law firm about 21 people. I have given my answer to each person. This resulted in the following facts for me: Abuse in case H. In 6 cases there was no abuse. In 8 cases it is about abuse, but not during my term of office or not in my area of responsibility. In 2 cases it is about abuse of religious priests who were immediately sent back to their order. In 1 case it is a question of a priest who behaved erroneously and loaded child porn onto his computer. I suspended him immediately. In 1 case I experienced abuse at the end of my tenure. A complaint was filed here. In 1 case I did not find out anything about abuse. I only found out about it through the investigation. One name was completely unknown to me. These are the facts of the 21 cases, which by no means generally prove ‘misconduct in 21 cases’.
2. The H. case attracted particular public attention. As far as I can see, this is particularly serious in relation to others. Above all, however, it also affects the entire time of my service. That’s why I go into it in detail. As far as I can remember, the first time I came into contact with the H. case was when it was a question of whether he could be used again in pastoral care after his misconduct. The decision that I made after intensive deliberation in the ordinariate meeting to send him to Garching/Alz under strict supervision was without a doubt objectively wrong.
How did this wrong decision come about? This decision was made years before 2010, when I actually first became aware of the fatal and destructive consequences that abuse inflicts on children and young people. I hadn’t had a serious and thorough discussion up to that point. One consequence of this was that I didn’t deal with the perpetrators with the necessary severity. That’s why I didn’t think it necessary to get the whole process from the start when making a decision, since H. had already been working in Munich for quite a while. Even that was wrong. If I had known all about the past, I am now convinced that I would not have sent him to Garching, but back to Essen. With the knowledge of today after 2010, I should have sent him to Essen immediately, even without knowing the whole history.
Of course, even in the 1980s and 1990s, sexual abuse of children was punishable by law and morally unacceptable. To be honest, I have to say that before 2010 I didn’t have enough knowledge and my awareness of the problem wasn’t sufficiently developed. The fact that this was the case with many in society at the time, not just in the church, makes my inappropriate and objectively wrong behavior from that time more understandable for me, but cannot justify it. Even looking back, I still don’t understand how little or nothing was known or communicated about the abuse processes: I had ordered strict monitoring of H. in Garching and I kept asking myself. This was to ensure that H. does not take any child or young people. I only heard positive reviews.
When H. Garching left I was glad that no abuse had happened. The supervising dean expressly confirmed this to me. Only through the most recent examinations did I find out that this was not true and that H. had relapsed. Why didn’t anyone tell me that? In any case, I assume that with this knowledge I would have immediately dismissed H. from the service of the diocese and sent him away. I am sincerely sorry because of the victims of abuse in Garching, but also in view of the communities indirectly affected, that I made the wrong decision as a child of my time and with my limited previous experience with a completely inadequate awareness of the problem in the H. case. Because if I had decided differently, these abuses could not have happened.
3. The H. case and the completely inadequate handling of the acts of abuse and the perpetrator show how necessary it was for the wall of silence to be broken through in 2010, the lack of awareness of the problem corrected and the damage done to the victims recognized. So the necessary work-up could begin. It is little comfort to me that I do not have to accuse myself of complete inactivity or forbearance in the treatment of abuse, despite my insufficient awareness of the problem at the time. After all, in the 1980s I suspended a priest for loading child pornography onto his computer.
But this does not change the fact that, at least in the case of H., I have to admit that I have not fulfilled my responsibility as Archbishop of Munich and Freising to the necessary extent to protect children and young people. This fills me with shame and sadness. Through theology and canon law, powers in the Catholic Church are concentrated almost exclusively on the local bishop. This corresponds to an undelegable personal responsibility. I therefore have to take personal responsibility for my part in the inadequate handling of the H. case, but also with other reports and cases of abuse during my term of office, and I apologize.”