processes
Court sees Benedict’s complicity in abuse case
The district court of Traunstein expresses a preliminary legal opinion that the later Pope Benedict, as archbishop of Munich and Freising, knew about the past of an abusive priest.
The district court in Traunstein sees cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as complicit in a case of abuse in Garching an der Alz. The later Pope Benedict XVI. In 1980, as archbishop of Munich and Freising, I took part in a meeting at which it was decided that a priest who had been transferred from North Rhine-Westphalia on suspicion of abuse should be installed in the archdiocese.
That is why he had “appropriate knowledge of the past life” of the priest, said the presiding judge Elisabeth Nitzinger-Spann on Tuesday. And yet the man was then taken over “without further restrictions and precautions” and continued to work in the pastoral care of children and young people. From the point of view of the court, Ratzinger’s behavior also gives rise to a claim for damages by the plaintiff against the archdiocese. The court’s view is a provisional legal opinion.
First denied, then spoken of as a mistake
Ratzinger’s participation in the meeting made headlines last year when the Munich abuse report was presented. The emeritus pope initially denied having attended the meeting, but then spoke of a mistake and admitted that he had been there. At the time he announced that the allegations against Priest H., which led to his transfer to Bavaria, were not discussed at the meeting and denied having any knowledge of them.
In the Traunstein trial, the plaintiff Andreas Perr is demanding 300,000 euros in damages from the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising and the convicted abuser, Priest H. Perr has stated that he was abused by Priest H. in the rectory of Garching an der Alz in the mid-1990s. Neither the clergyman nor the Archdiocese dispute the incident.
It is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and damages, said the presiding judge when explaining her preliminary legal opinion. “The only question that remains is the amount of the claim.”
Ratzinger was also a defendant until recently. However, the proceedings against him were separated because after his death on New Year’s Eve it is still unclear who will be his legal successor and thus, to a certain extent, also inherit the proceedings.
Archdiocese press release