Investigative journalists criticised in Pope Benedict case

There are new accusations against the late Benedict XVI: As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he had signed a document of his Congregation from 1986 which dealt with the same priest H. as in the "case of Peter H." of the Munich report and thus had known much earlier about the abuse crimes of the clergyman. First of all: Is this a new "discovery" by Bayrischer Rundfunk and "Correctiv" at all?

Of course not. In all my experience for more than a year, the portal "Correctiv" does not "discover" anything, but simply publishes leaked documents. The 1986 case, the details of which have only now been made public, was included in the file material available to the Munich law firm WSW for the preparation of its "expert report",

I had also seen him in the context of the inspection of files for Pope Benedict. In the special volume on "Priest X" - as WSW called Peter H. - the event is also mentioned, admittedly in very general terms: "At the request of the archdiocese" H. had received permission "from the competent authority in Rome" to celebrate with grape juice (p. 36).

Why did the case of H. reach the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1986 at all?

If, for health reasons, a priest can no longer celebrate Holy Mass with the prescribed matter - according to Canon 924 CIC: bread made from pure wheat flour and naturally pure wine - he needs exceptional permission to do so. For example, a priest suffering from coeliac disease can be allowed to celebrate with gluten-free hosts and a priest suffering from alcoholism - like Peter H. - can be allowed to celebrate with grape juice.

The Archdiocese of Munich had therefore turned to the Holy See, which is responsible for granting exceptional permission. The corresponding request was addressed to the Congregation for the Sacraments, overlooking the fact that responsibility in the Roman Curia had been transferred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith some time before. So the archdiocese addressed the relevant request to the Congregation for the Sacraments, which forwarded it ex officio to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"Therefore, the conclusion from the signature under a document to a more detailed knowledge of the background."

So did Cardinal Ratzinger know of the clergyman's misdemeanours?

Not necessarily. It is true that the Archdiocese of Munich had pointed out Peter H.'s criminal conviction. The case worker in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who prepared the decision, was therefore aware of the previous history. In the final answer of the then Prefect, however, this is not mentioned, as can be read correctly in press reports. One has to know the curial administrative practice: Every document of a dicastery is signed by the prefect or, if he is prevented, by the secretary, regardless of the importance of the content. Unlike in the case of state ministries in Germany, for example, it is not the official who deals with the matter (and is familiar with the file) who signs "by proxy".

In practice, one must imagine that the Prefect is regularly presented with a more or less extensive signature folder, which only contains the documents concluding the proceedings, but not the file material belonging to them. Therefore, the conclusion from the signature under a document to a closer knowledge of the background is at least risky. In addition: At the time of the enquiry by the Archdiocese of Munich, Peter H. had long since been removed from the pastoral care of the parish, but remained a priest - and as such he was required to celebrate Holy Mass daily according to Canon 904 CIC. The Munich request must be seen against this background. A renewed assignment to a parish was not on the agenda at the time; such an assignment was only ordered later by the Ordinariate Conference in Munich, without the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith being asked about the matter again.

Source