Experts are once again in demand

adminonNovember 22, 2021January 5, 2022Leave a Comment

Proven outside help: After new abuse allegations against former bishop Heinrich Maria Janssen, the diocese of Hildesheim again wants to seek advice from the Munich Institute for Practical Research and Project Consulting.

"The idea is that the Munich Institute for Practical Research and Project Consulting (IPP) will help us, among other things, to put together an external group of experts who will take over the reappraisal," said diocese spokesman Volker Bauerfeld on Tuesday when asked by the Catholic News Agency (KNA).

The institute should also advise on the formulation of the research assignment. An exploratory meeting is planned for mid-January. "The IPP has good previous experience in clearing up sexualized violence in church institutions and also already knows the structures here in the diocese," Bauerfeld reasoned.

Accusations against Bishop Janssen

In mid-November, the diocese made public the accusations of a man now in his mid-70s. The former resident of a church children's home reported that Bishop Heinrich Maria Janssen (1907-1988) asked him to strip naked in front of him in the late 1950s. Subsequently, he had sent him away with the words that he could not use him.

The man described further acts of abuse by teachers and clergy in the former Hildesheim children's homes Bernwardshof and Johannishof. According to his information, he was brought to the bishop and picked up again by the priest who was in charge of Bernwardshof. The two institutions will now be completely reviewed, Bauerfeld announced.

The IPP had already been commissioned by the diocese two years ago with an expert opinion on several cases of abuse within the diocese.

Serious omissions in processing

Previously, a former altar boy had contacted the diocese of Hildesheim and reported that Janssen had sexually abused him between 1958 and 1963. The IPP expert opinion could neither prove nor refute the accusations. However, the authors accused the diocese of serious failures in the processing of sexual abuse.

Hildesheim's new bishop Heiner Wilmer had recently repeatedly spoken out for a "relentless clarification of cases of sexual abuse". He showed himself willing to allow outsiders to inspect church files as well. End of October handed over documents to the responsible public prosecutor's office. At that time, six investigative proceedings were initiated.

The diocese of Munster faces a record number of church departures in 2018, according to research by the diocesan newspaper "Kirche + Leben". Random checks of local courts and registry offices showed an increase in resignations of more than 50 percent, the newspaper reported.

In 2017, 1.87 million people (44 percent) in the Munster diocese were still Catholic. More than 8.000 people had left. In 2018, it could be over 12.000 his.

In Steinfurt, according to "Kirche + Leben," 496 Catholics (2017: 315) left the church last year. At the registry office in Cloppenburg, 138 people left the church, although in Cloppenburg there is no separation by denomination. Only the percentage of Catholics in the population suggests that three-quarters were Catholic (2017: 92).

At the district court in Bocholt, 440 people (2017: 300) left the Catholic Church; in Munster, the figure was 1.428 (2017: 1.035). In the district court of Kleve 483 Christians expressed their resignation, comparative figures are not available

Possible reason: abuse study

In total, according to calculations by "Kirche + Leben," this could mean that more than 12.000 Catholics have left the Catholic Church in the diocese of Munster. The high number of resignations could be related to the study on abuse in the Catholic Church published last September.

The study found evidence in church records from 1946 to 2014 of nationwide 3.677 victims of sexual assault and to around 1.670 accused priests, deacons and religious found.

This time the decision is final: crucifixes may remain in Italian classrooms, according to the European Court of Human Rights. The 17 judges in Strasbourg on Friday overturned a different ruling ied in November 2009. Now no objection is possible.

The verdict of the Strasbourg judges, led by their president Jean-Paul Costa, was reached by a vote of 15 to 2. But it took them almost nine months to come to a conclusion after the oral hearing at the end of June 2010. Clearly, the judges were aware that they were dealing with a fundamental ie. What is surprising is the large majority with which they contradicted their seven counterparts, who in 2009 had still unanimously represented a contrary view.

Does a mother have to accept that her children are taught in a classroom with a crucifix on the wall?? Italy's highest judges had answered the question with a "yes". They argued that the crucifix had long since become a symbol of Italy's values.

"Clearly religious symbol"
The seven judges of the first instance of the Human Rights Court, on the other hand, declared that the cross is a clearly religious symbol. It has no place in state schools, because the students could feel disturbed in their sensibilities. This made headlines across Europe and led to partly outraged reactions in Italy and other European countries, but also on the part of the Catholic Church.

The final verdict ied on Friday is more than 30 pages long and, as expected, differentiated. The judges conclude that – as with other socially controversial ies – European states have a high degree of discretionary power. They therefore had to decide for themselves how they wanted to deal with crucifixes in classes. The 47 member states of the Council of Europe have different ways of dealing with the problem. The Human Rights Court had already acted in a similar way on ies such as the opening of marriage to same-sex couples, abortion or euthanasia.

The Grand Chamber, however, does not retreat to the position of a mere observer who has nothing to do with the matter. They did not accept the Italian line of argument that it was a time-honored tradition and that the crosses were more a symbol of democratic and civilizing values. Traditions, too, would very well have to submit to scrutiny for their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, they note. And they emphasize that the cross leads to "increased visibility of Christianity in the school environment". It is "above all a religious symbol".

"No indoctrination"
But: As an "essentially passive symbol" this does not yet constitute indoctrination, which would be a prohibition against the Human Rights Convention according to the Strasbourg judges. There are no indications that the authorities are behaving intolerantly toward students of other denominations. Also for instance the carrying of the Islamic head cloth is not forbidden. Earlier, the Human Rights Court had found that it was permissible to give more space in the curriculum to a religion because it had a dominant importance in the history of a country.

The Swiss judge at the Human Rights Court, Giorgio Malinverni, expressed a dissenting reception; his Bulgarian colleague followed him. They argued that states must maintain "strict neutrality" when it comes to religion – and that a cross in the classroom is already too much. Among the 17 judges, however, this position remained a clear minority opinion.

The case is decided – appeal is no longer possible. However, the ie of the separation of religion and state has not been settled yet. For the Strasbourg judges fail to provide guidelines as to where the line is drawn between what they consider permissible "increased visibility" of a religion and what they consider impermissible "indoctrination".

Leave a Reply Cancel reply