Pope Benedict XVI knew about priests who abused children, but did not act when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1981 survey found Thursday, rejecting the long-standing denials former Pontiff.
“He was aware of the facts,” said attorney Martin Pous , as the Westpfahl law firm Spilker Wastl announced the findings of its decades-long investigation into the historic sexual abuse of the Archdiocese of Munich. The exhibition was commissioned by the church itself.
“We believe he can be charged with breach of duty in four cases,” Pous said. “Two of these cases concern abuses committed during his tenure and have been sanctioned by the state. In both cases, the perpetrators remained active in pastoral care . “
Benedict continues to deny the allegations, the company said on Thursday. But the findings are a conviction for the former pope, then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger , which follows years of speculation about how much he knew.
He has repeatedly denied allegations that he deliberately covered up the abuse, including in 2013 when he wrote: “I can only, as you know, acknowledge it with a deep question. “But I never tried to cover these things.” CNN contacted Benedict's longtime secretary to respond to Thursday's report.
Benedict's position was rejected by lawyers at the long-awaited press conference in Munich . “During his tenure, there were cases of abuse,” Pous said, referring to Benedict . “In these cases, these priests continued their work without sanctions. The church did nothing . “
“He claims he did not know about certain events, although we do not believe that is the case, as far as we know,” Pous said. Benedict, 94 years today became the first Pope for centuries resigned in 2013. His term was overshadowed by a global sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, and the findings of researchers -which now engage directly in the failure to prevent and to punish abuse- threaten to ruin the reputation of the former pope.
Lawyer Ulrich Wastl presented a copy of the minutes of a meeting of Munich church leaders on January 15, 1980, “when it was decided to take on a criminal whom the report mentions as priest X.”
Wastl said he was “surprised” that Benedict denied that he was in the meeting, despite the fact that the minutes show that he was. “This is something that has been recorded,” Wastl said, later dismissing Benedict's denial as “unreliable.”
Wastl said Benedict had made a statement to the inquiry but gave it little credibility, summing up Benedict's position as follows: “You have proof that a particular document was submitted, but you do not have proof that I read it.”
