Doubts about Pope's suitability for the job

[ByaseL]

VATICAN CITY –
Long before entering Vatican life, Pope Benedict XVI won renown as a theologian and a German university professor, penning more than 40 books and winning a devoted following of students who respected his prodigious memory and brilliant mind.
One thing absent from his resume? Significant time as a parish priest.

Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, only worked 15 months tending to a flock in the 59 years since taking his vows, instead closing himself in the ivory tower of academia — a background that may help account for his troubled handling of the sex abuse crisis engulfing the church.
For one, it adds to the impression of an out-of-touch pontiff who simply doesn't grasp the enormity of the fury around the world over mounting evidence of sex abuse by priests, and inaction on the part of the Vatican and Benedict himself.

Benedict's very legacy will be shaped by whether this aging pontiff, who turns 83 on Friday, can embrace a new openness and express remorse in straightforward language free of the stilted defensiveness of many Vatican pronouncements to date.

"Pope Ratzinger, more lucid than many of his defenders, must keep from being suffocated by Professor Ratzinger," Marco Politi, a veteran Vatican reporter, wrote in a column last week in the daily Il Fatto.

But in his native Germany, the prominent Der Spiegel magazine has already declared his papacy a failure, speaking in its most recent issue of "the tragedy of a man who had set out to write books and, only near the end of his life, was summoned to assume the Herculean office at the Vatican."
Even the pope's staunchest admirers say he's not the best manager.

"Benedict XVI is only infallible as an authoritative teacher of the faith, not as an administrator," noted the Rev. Joseph Fessio, who wrote his doctoral dissertation under Ratzinger and participates in the annual "student circle" discussions Benedict hosts each summer with his former students.
Some of Benedict's critics, however, say the pope's real problems lie mainly with a practice of surrounding himself with unqualified advisers.

"He doesn't have grade A types around him — but he picked them," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame and frequent critic of the pope.
McBrien noted that although Ratzinger served only a short time as a parish priest, his five years as archbishop of Munich and Freising gave him ample real-world experience. He said Ratzinger engaged fully with even the small details of administration there and later as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church's doctrine office.

Yet his tenure in Munich provides precisely one of the more damning cases of sex abuse that have swirled around the pope himself: In the 1980s, Ratzinger approved therapy for a suspected pedophile priest, but the prelate was allowed to resume pastoral work while in therapy.

The Vatican has insisted that Ratzinger's vicar took full responsibility for letting the Rev. Peter Hullermann resume pastoral work and that the future pope was unaware. Hullermann in 1986 was handed a suspended sentence for molesting a boy.

In addition, while running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger resisted pleas from a California diocese to laicize a priest who had pleaded no contest to lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two boys, according to correspondence obtained by The Associated Press.
The Vatican's lawyer has insisted the California bishop was responsible for making sure the priest, the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, didn't abuse while Rome processed his case to remove him from the priesthood.
"The pope's background as a professor of theology has little or nothing to do with the present controversy. It is simply one of the excuses offered by his well-intentioned defenders," McBrien told the AP.

Despite Benedict's missteps, there are a few signs that some understanding of the outrage is starting to penetrate the Vatican's medieval walls.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, long a bastion of protecting Vatican secrecy, is seeking greater openness with plans to post on its Web site Monday a concise and simply written guide to how it handles sex abuse allegations. And in his recent letter to the Irish bishops, Benedict urged greater cooperation with civil authorities in cases of pedophile priests and said he'd meet with more victims.

 

[Gagnija]

Ukipata homily ya Cardinal Ratzinger kwenye misa ya siku ya kuanza uchaguzi wa mrithi wa John Paul ii utapata majibu kwa nini hawa jamaa wanamchukia.

 

[Paschal Matubi]

Ukipata homily ya Cardinal Ratzinger kwenye misa ya siku ya kuanza uchaguzi wa mrithi wa John Paul ii utapata majibu kwa nini hawa jamaa wanamchukia.

Soma hii:
Chanzo Tanzania Daima
Website: http://www.freemedia.co.tz/daima/habari.php?id=14811
Heading: KWA NINI PAPA BENEDICT ALAUMIWE
TAREHE: JANA JUMAPILI

KUNA mazoea kwamba waandishi wa Ulaya na Amerika ni watafiti zaidi katika habari zao. Lakini yanapokuja masuala ya Kanisa Katoliki ni rahisi nao kukumbwa na ugonjwa ule ule unaoitwa ’uvivu wa kutafiti’.

Tumesikia jinsi kashfa za mapadri huko Ulaya na Amerika zinavyoendelea kutawala habari duniani. Vatican na majimbo husika wamekiri kutokea vitendo vile.
Japo zimevuma sana duniani tuzijadili humu kwa kifupi kwa madhumuni ya makala hii. Zimetokea nchini Ireland, Ujerumani na Marekani.

Nchini Ireland, chanzo ni Oktoba 2002, ambapo Televisheni ya Ireland ilirusha kipindi kilichoonyesha unyanyasaji uliofanywa na baadhi ya mapadri wa Kanisa Katoliki nchini humo tangu mwaka 1975.
Ireland iliunda tume iliyoongozwa na Jaji Yvonne Murphy kuchunguza madai yale. Tume ilitangaza ripoti yake Novemba, 26, 2009 na ikaonekana ambavyo athari kwa waathirika hazikuzingatiwa kwa unyanyasaji uliotokea.

Ndani ya siku 29 baada ya ripoti, maaskofu wanne nchini humo walijiuzulu nyadhifa zao; Eamonn Walsh, Raymond Field, Jim Moriarty na Donal Murray, ndio waliachia ngazi. Baadaye Machi 19, Papa aliandika waraka kwa Wakatoliki wa Ireland kuhusu kashfa zile.

Kama vile ni sinema, wakati Papa anaandaa waraka kwenda Ireland kumbe kashfa nyingine nayo inajiandaa kusambaa duniani. Hii inaelezwa kutokea Ujerumani mwaka 1980 wakati yeye mwenyewe (Papa) akiwa askofu wa Jimbo la Munich akijulikana kama Kardinali Joseph Ratzinger. Papa huyu ametajwa kwamba katika unyanyasaji wa Padri Peter Hullermann alijulishwa lakini hatima yake ni kuhamishwa kwa padri huyu kwenda parokia nyingine (Rejea gazeti la New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19church.html).

Dunia ikatulia kwenye “kipindi cha mapumziko” kama timu za mpira. Mapumziko ya siku sita yalipoisha ikasambaa kashfa nyingine. Hii sasa ni nchini Marekani, ya unyanyasaji uliofanywa na hayati Padri Lawrence Murphy wa Milwaukee kwenye miaka ya 1960.

Hapa tena amehusishwa moja kwa moja Papa Benedict XVI akiwa bado Kardinali Ratzinger lakini tayari ameshahamia Vatican akiongoza idara inayosimamia Imani ya Kanisa Katoliki, yaani CDF. Kwamba idara hii ilishindwa kumvua utumishi (laicization) Padri Murphy (Rejea gazeti la New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html)

Je, ni nini kimefanyika kanisani katika yote haya? Tumeona nchini Ireland maaskofu wanne wakiachia ngazi ya uchungaji. Kauli ya kanisa kwa yaliyotokea Ireland ni vizuri kurejea baadhi ya sehemu za waraka ule wa Papa unaopatikana kwenye tovuti ya Vatican (www.vatican.va).

Ndani ya waraka, wenye vifungu 14, Papa amekiri kusikitika kwa Kanisa kupatwa na aibu hii (..You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry.. Kifungu 6, aya ya 1.
Pia ameeleza jinsi alivyowaita maaskofu wa Ireland pale Vatican wamueleze walivyoshughulikia masuala yale (...I recently invited the Irish bishops to a meeting here in Rome to give an account of their handling of these matters..... Kifungu 1, aya ya 2).

Hapa tunaona kuwa kumbe suala hili ndiyo kwanza sasa linafika Vatican, tena baada ya Papa kuwaita maaskofu badala ya wao kuwa wamelifikisha kwa utaratibu wa Mahakama za Kanisa.
Ni nini walichoshindwa kufanya nchini Ireland? Tumnukuu tena Papa: ( ... Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include...resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties..... Kifungu 4, aya ya 2. Kwamba Kanisa nchini Ireland lilishindwa kutumia kanuni za adhabu kama zilivyoainishwa kwenye Sheria za Kanisa.

Sehemu ya 11 ya barua ile Papa amekumbusha wajibu wa maaskofu kutoa ushirikiano kwa vyombo vya dola vinapohitaji ushirikiano wao.

Sitajadili sana lile suala la Ujerumani ambako Papa Benedict XVI alikuwa askofu kwani limejikita zaidi kwenye suala la mawasiliano ndani ya ofisi za jimbo, yaani askofu na wasaidizi wake.
Kuhusu ile kashfa ya Padri Murphy (Marekani), Padri Federico Lombardi ambaye ndiye msemaji wa Vatican amenukuliwa kwenye tovuti ifuatayo ya Catholic News Agency: (www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/fr._lombardi_explains_vatican_response_to_sexual_abuses_by_wisconsin_priest).

Maelezo yanatoa picha kwamba lengo la kesi iliyoanzishwa ilikuwa kwamba Padri Murphy apate adhabu kubwa anayoistahili hasa kuondolewa utumishini (laicization).
Hata hivyo adhabu kama hii ni lazima itoke kama hukumu kwenye Mahakama ya Kanisa kwa mujibu wa Sheria za Kanisa. Hivyo Padri Murphy akawa mtuhumiwa akisubiri hukumu ya mahakama hiyo. Utuhumiwa huo haumuondolei haki ya kusikilizwa utetezi wake wala haki ya kukata rufaa asipoyapenda maamuzi.

Kesi kama hii si tu kwamba lazima ifike Vatican kwenye moja ya mahakama tatu zilizopo pale, yaani 1: Roma Rota 2: 2: Apostolic Penitentiary na 3: Apostolic Signatura. Kesi hii lazima ifike kwa Papa ambaye ana jukumu la kumuondoa kasisi (padri/askofu) utumishini.
Pamoja na kwamba unyanyasaji wa Padri Murphy ulitokea miaka ya 1960/70 lakini kwa mara ya kwanza suala limefika rasmi Vatican mwaka 1996. Hapa gazeti la New York Times hawahoji kwa nini suala likae jimboni miaka yote ile.

New York Times walibahatika kupata kopi ya taarifa za mawasiliano kati ya jimbo na Vatican. Iliyowashtua ni moja yenye maneno yafuatayo {.. But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.}

Tafsiri ni kwamba Kardnali Bertone aliamuru kesi ya Padri Murphy isiendelee kwa sababu Padri Murphy mwenyewe aliandika barua kwa Kardinali Ratzinger akipinga kesi ile isiendelee kwani alishatubu, afya yake si nzuri na kwamba suala lile limeshachukua muda mrefu.

Je, hoja za mtuhumiwa huyu Padri murphy ni halali, kwamba ametubu na kesi isiendelee hata kama ingekuwa ndani ya muda wake?

Kwa sura ya kijamii, Padri Murphy anatuhumiwa kufanya kitendo cha unyanyasaji. Mahala kilipofanyika kitendo kile au dini ya mtuhumiwa na muathirika si msingi mkubwa kwa tuhuma zile.
Hata hivyo mmoja wa waathirika, Arthur Budzinski (60), ameripotiwa mitandaoni akieleza kunyanyaswa mwaka 1960 alipoenda kwa padri huyu kufanya maungamo {Rejea tovuti ile ya gazeti}.

Kwa nchi kama Marekani alikoshi Padri Murphy na hata Tanzania dini au imani ni suala la mtu binafsi. Nchi kama hiyo maungamo hayana nafasi yoyote kama msingi wa kesi.
Lakini kwa Mkatoliki maungamo ni suala la imani kwani ni Sakramenti ya Kitubio (Sacrament of Penance). Hapa kosa la Padri Murphy ni kosa la kiimani. Kuikiuka (violation) Sakramenti ya Kitubio. Hivyo Sheria za Kanisa zinaweza kushindwa kutaja moja kwa moja ni adhabu gani itolewe kwa kukiuka sakramenti hii kama alivyofanya.

Padri Murphy anakiri alitumia vibaya Sakramenti ya Kitubio mwaka 1960. Mwaka 1998 analeta hoja kwamba ameshatubu kosa lile. Lugha kama hii haieleweki na sidhani kama inakubalika nje ya Ukatoliki.

Wala Padri Murphy hafikirii kupeleka hoja hii huko. Hata pale Vatican hakupeleka hoja hii pale Roman Rota ilikofikia kesi yake. Kapeleka hoja hii kwa anayesimamia Imani ya Kanisa Katoliki duniani, Kardinali Joseph Ratzinger na Idara yake ya CDF.

Hata ukiangalia hoja zake nyingine si rahisi kuzipuuza. Kwamba afya yake si nzuri na suala limechukua muda mrefu.

Kwa misingi hii miwili, suala lina sababu za kufungwa na kutoendelea kusikilizwa kama kesi inayosimamiwa na Roman Rota. Suala likahamishwa kwenda idara ya kusimamia Imani (CDF) ya Kardinali Ratinger kama suala la imani.

Hapa ndipo wenzetu wa gazeti la New York Times waliposhindwa kubaini hali hii.
Kwamba Kardinali Joseph Ratzinger na idara yake hawakupokea suala hili kama rufani ya kesi ya unyanyasaji. Wapolichukua na mawasiliano yote yaliyofuata lilikuwa ni suala la imani, ukiukaji wa sakramenti ya kitubio (Violation of the Sacrament of Penance).

Hata kama wanasheria wa Marekani wakiruhusiwa kufanya uchunguzi pale Vatican, sana sana wataishia Mahakama ya Roman Rota, kwani pale ndipo rufani za kesi kutoka majimboni hufikia na hii ya Padri Murphy ilifia pale kwa hoja zile (Rejea: Sheria za Kanisa: Can. 1443).

Idara ya CDF ya Kardinali Ratinger haitaguswa, kwanza si mahakama, kwani yenyewe ilikuwa inahangaika na hoja za Padri Murphy kuhusu Sakramenti ya Kitubio.

Hata hivyo Padri Murphy alifariki miezi chache baada ya kuleta changamoto yake hiyo ikigonga vichwa vya wataalamu wa katekisimu/teolojia pale Vatican, akiwemo Kardinali Joseph Ratzinger.

Uamuzi wa Papa tu ndiyo hauna rufani ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki duniani { Rejea: Sheria za Kanisa: Can. 1442 na 333(3)}. Kardinali Ratinger hakuwa Papa wakati ule. Kama Padri Murphy aliweza kujenga hoja na shauri likahamishwa kutoka Roma Rota kwenda Idara ya Imani (CDF).
Je, angeshindwa nini kukata rufani moja kwa moja kwa Papa John Paul II kupinga uamuzi wa CDF ya Ratzinger kama matokeo yasingemrishisha? Hivyo Kardinali Ratzinger na idara yake ni lazima walitakiwa kuliangalia suala lile kwa umakini.

Bila maelezo haya kutoka Vatican gazeti la New York Times limemuonyesha Kardinali Ratzinger kama yumo kwenye mtiririko wa Mahakama ya Kanisa unaofanya kazi chini ya Sheria za Kanisa.
Jambo ambalo waandishi wale (New York Times) hawakulifafanua na kuacha mwanya wa kuhoji uelewa wao kuhusu mahakama za Kanisa Katoliki. Uelewa ambao tunaujadili kuanzia aya ifuatayo.

Baada ya kuzichambua kashfa zile, tuone sasa uelewa wa watu kwa sheria hizi za Kanisa na mahakama zake. Agosti 2008, Mahakama ya Kanisa Jimbo Kuu la Dar es Salaam iliweka barua kwenye ubao wa matangazo wa pale kanisani St. Joseph.

Barua ile ikiwa na kumbukumbu namba JKD/MYM/016/2008, ilikuwa inawakumbusha waumini kupeleka kesi zao kwenye mahakama hiyo hasa kesi za ndoa. Ninanukuu sehemu ya kipengele 1(iv) cha barua hiyo kinachosema hivi: “uzoefu unaonyesha kuwa watu wengi hawajui uwepo wa chombo hiki muhimu (Mahakama ya Kanisa) na kwamba kinafanya kazi gani na wapi na lini na kinapokea kesi kwa kiwango gani na kama kuna kesi za aina hiyo wazipeleke kwa nani. (Mwisho wa kunukuu).

Anayenunua na kusoma vitabu vya Sheria za Kanisa ni rahisi kutambua kwamba adhabu za kanisa ziko kwenye kanuni ya 1311 hadi 1399 na Mahakama ya Kanisa imefafanuliwa kwenye Kanuni 1400 hadi 1752.

Miaka 12 nyuma Padri Severine Niwe Mugizi alitafsiri Kitabu cha Pili cha Sheria za Kanisa katika lugha ya Kiswahili na kukiita ‘ ZIJUE SHERIA ZA KANISA.’ Kwenye ukurasa wa tano Padri Severine anamalizia aya ya pili ya utangulizi kwa kusema: “Bila shaka wapo wengi watakaoshangaa kusoma sheria hizi, maana ni kitu kipya kwao.” Padri Niwe Mugizi sasa hivi ni askofu wa Jimbo la Rulenge-Ngara.

Mifano hii miwili ya Askofu Severine na ule wa Jimbo Kuu la Dar es Salaam ni ishara ya tatizo kubwa la ufinyu katika uelewa wa Sheria za Kanisa. Ufinyu unaosabisha kutojua rufani za kesi kutoka jimboni zinakwenda wapi. Hutajua rufani kwenda Vatican zinafikaje huko.

Kwa mwandishi asiye Mkatoliki hali yaweza kuwa mbaya zaidi na matokeo yake ndiyo haya ya kumtupia lawama Papa Benedict XVI bila kutafiti undani au unyeti wa suala husika.
Je, Sheria za Kanisa ni adimu hivyo hadi kuleta uelewa huu mdogo? Sheria za Kanisa zinapatikana kwenye maduka ya Kanisa Katoliki kama lile la Paulines Book Media lililoko pale kanisani St. Joseph jijini Dar es Salaam.

Uelewa wa Sheria, Mahakama, Katekisimu ya Kanisa waweza kuwa bado ni mdogo. Hata hivyo vyote hivyo ni mambo ambayo yanasomwa na yanatafitiwa na kueleweka kama mambo mengine duniani.

Tuhuma hizi si ndogo. Hivyo inatakiwa uangalifu mkubwa. Tukilishinikiza Kanisa lichukue hatua kila yanapotokea haya, basi tuwe tayari kujibu maswali kadhaa baadhi tuyajadili hapa.

Je, Kanisa lichukue hatua mara tu minong’ono inaposemwa kuhusu tabia ya mtumishi wake? Je, lichukue hatua anapofumaniwa waziwazi lakini bado hajafikishwa polisi au mahakamani? Je, lichukue hatua siku anaandika maelezo mahakamani au polisi? Je, lichukue hatua siku kesi inapotajwa mahakamani? Je, lifanye vile siku anapopatikana na hatia na kuingia jela?

Kapatikana na hatia na sasa yumo gerezani. Hukumu ya mahakama ndiyo ushahidi usiopingika. Je, kanisa liutegemee huu na limuadhibu padri yule hukohuko jela aliko maana makosa yale hapa unaweza kufungwa maisha?

Kumbe huko jela Padri anaendelea kimyakimya na mipango yake ya kukata rufani? Ghafla tunasikia kwenye vyombo vya habari kwamba yule padri si mfungwa tena, kwani ameshinda rufani yake ngazi ya juu.

Je, Kanisa lifanyeje kutokana na kutegemea hukumu ya mahakama zetu za uraiani? Kama moja ya hatua Kanisa liliomba msamaha, je, lirudi sasa lifute ule msamaha?

Maswali yote yale yanajenga dhana kwamba kama muathirika amepeleka kesi mahakama za uraiani (Civil court) basi uamuzi wake uheshimiwe, mwenendo na maamuzi yatakayotolewa na mahakama yaheshimiwe.

Muathirika akiamua asifikirie mahakama za uraiani badala yake akapenda zaidi Mahakama ya Kanisa, basi na huyu aheshimiwe, na mwenendo na maamuzi ya mahakama hiyo navyo viheshimiwe.

Muathirika aliyeamua kukaa kimya licha ya kuwepo mahakama zote mbili, ya Kanisa au ya kiraia. Kwamba kwa hiari yake mwenyewe ameamua yaishe, huyu pia ni uamuzi wake.

Hoja ni pale baadhi ya hawa watu kubadili mawazo baada ya miaka mingi kupita. Si kwamba baada ya kubadili mawazo wanaamua sasa kwenda kwenye moja ya zile mahakama mbili walizoziacha, bali wanakwenda kwenye vyombo vya habari kusimulia unyanyasaji uliotokea miaka 30 iliyopita, baadhi yao sasa wakiwa na umri wa miaka 60.

Ukweli ni kwamba haki yao kufanya vile inakaribisha pia maswali kwamba kwanini wamesubiri miaka yote ile?

 

[Kinyambiss]

The bad thing was the systematic cover-up, and not his personal sorrow about what happened. The Irish pedophile went on to abuse more boys in the 80s. The Church chose as a priority, securing its own reputation and financial muscle by covering up abuse by its priests. And the conventional 'vicar of Christ' used his former position to sanction this kind of behavior.. The Holy Mother Church above innocent children.. A great shame to be honest.

 

[Magobe T]

The bad thing was the systematic cover-up, and not his personal sorrow about what happened. The Irish pedophile went on to abuse more boys in the 80s. The Church chose as a priority, securing its own reputation and financial muscle by covering up abuse by its priests. And the conventional 'vicar of Christ' used his former position to sanction this kind of behavior.. The Holy Mother Church above innocent children.. A great shame to be honest.

I'm tempted to conclude that we've entered the debate without being fully aware of what happened and what the Church did or was supposed to do at the time. Since we are ignorant of this, we are likely to support a view that appeals to our senses even if it may not give us enough details to judge the issue in front of us fairly. This is very dangerous.

I say this bearing in mind that the Church has many enemies who can easily find it an opportune time to confuse the faithful so that they leave the Catholic Church. If things are so clear about the sex scandals as some contributors show, why then didn't the authorities that adminsiter justice - the polic/court - act at the time the scandals started? If we want to be fair we have to discuss with every fact in front of us and not just pass judgement basing ourselves on the opions of others.