Cardinal Woelki: Cover-up after sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Cologne?

Icon: enlarge

Archbishop Rainer Maria Cardinal Woelki

Photo: Christoph Hardt / imago images / Future Image

Sermons

I have to admit that I am not one of the regular readers of the newspaper “Christ und Welt” (“C&W”), the “weekly paper for faith, spirit and society”.

I am missing one of the three profile requirements mentioned.

But when the partner of a well-known Munich law firm reports for three pages that he was the victim of a "violent attack" by the Archbishop of Cologne, I am of course electrified like everyone else who struggles day after day in the journalistic fight against the omnipresent violence: the psychological and emotional, literal and figurative, implied and threatening, secret and emotional, acoustic and sensitive, implicit and linguistic violence has taken possession of the whole of society, which would so much like to be peaceful, but is simply not left "in these times" .

The fact that even cardinals are now using force against lawyers is really unheard of or, to quote a very rare formulation of the objective description, "a new quality".

So we read and are concerned: "This is a violent attack" in "C&W" on February 4th.

Fortunately, lawyer Wastl from the "Westpfahl Spilker Wastl" (WSW) looks unharmed in all three photos;

that's reassuring.

The violent attack of October 30, 2020, as we soon learned, was that Cardinal Woelki from Cologne decided to keep an expert opinion that WSW had prepared on his behalf "under lock and key".

This attack has continued since then, which has embittered attorney Wastl and brought the German public through the time of the home office in the most entertaining way, especially since the cardinal announced at Christmas that he was apologizing.

Well, not as direct and not as "Bild" would have thought appropriate for Christmas, that is, by slipping around on the tiles of the cathedral in tears plus self-flagellation.

He apologized for the fact that the sheep and sheep of his district had to suffer from all sorts of accusations, which were also brought against him, the cardinal.

That was a fine formulation, the interpretation of which could occupy a theological Consilium generale for three days and nights.

After a short breath, the journalistic lay crowd agreed on the interpretation that the bishop was sorry that he had given cause for unjustified displeasure.

While that is not quite what could be seen as an exemplary occasion for a thundering absolution, it leaves this path open at least in theory.

Assessment

Oh, the report!

It is a work (§ 631 BGB) that the Archdiocese of Cologne commissioned the Munich chancellery to produce.

A follow-up order, so to speak, after the law firm was allowed to look for the wrong first in Munich and Freising and then in Aachen.

When the work was completed and its acceptance was requested, what Mr. Wastl of WSW of the "C&W" called a "violent attack" occurred: The customer first made reservations and then deficiencies and refused to go into the office solemnly move in the thought structures erected.

Anyone who has ever built their own home and dared not to take on the work of an installer or roofer knows that "violent attack" describes the impression of emotional shock that the contractor feels very cautiously and immediately clothe the harshest lawyer he knows in appropriate words leaves.

Now the local workpiece is a very special one, and the three craftsmen who created it come from a master school of the highest scientific art.

A Michelangelo, dear reader, does not paint the ceiling so that the Pope then pastes it over with silk wallpaper, no matter how much the work customer struggles with the beauty!

All of this, of course, is unsuitable for satisfying the need for clarity that is always asserted.

The report for the Diocese of Aachen was intended to clarify the sexual abuse of wards by clerics between 1965 and 2019 and was subtitled "Responsibilities, systemic causes, consequences and recommendations".

The order for the Archdiocese of Cologne was formulated accordingly.

The Aachen report comprises over 500 pages;

it can be assumed that the Cologne counterpart is similarly extensive.

The Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Woelki, did not publish the report, but instead commissioned the two professors of criminal law Matthias Jahn (Frankfurt) and Franz Streng (Erlangen-Nuremberg) with a method-critical report to check the professional quality.

This report came to the conclusion that the Munich law firm had made considerable methodological errors and that its report was partly tendentious and therefore flawed.

The Munich law firm, in turn, has since accused the two university professors of having made methodological errors in checking the methods.

In the meantime, the diocese has commissioned another expert, the Cologne lawyer Björn Gercke, to prepare a second expert opinion.

This should be available on March 18th.

The audience is excited.

All of this, of course, is unsuitable for satisfying the need for clarity that is always asserted.

This, in turn, is a soil on which conspiracy fantasies flourish.

Everyone designs them as they want and as their pre-setting suggests.

Most of it runs under the fictional script "Mighty Cardinal tries to prevent the investigation".

It is doubtful that this rather simple story has a significant level of reality.

This is true even on the condition that one is used to some audacity or bigoted self-righteousness from those in charge of the Catholic and other churches.

The whole thing is dealt with on a level at which serious doubts about the facts are no longer viewed as debatable, but rather public battles are fought over the necessary degree of "disgust" and moral condemnation of the "responsible".

Not many people are currently familiar with the WSW's report on the Archdiocese of Cologne;

it is not public.

Attorney Wastl indicated in the »C&W« interview that he had an (enforceable) legal right to publish the work.

That may clarify who wants or has to.

In any case, the report on the diocese of Aachen is public;

it is on the WSW homepage, among other places.

Jahn and Streng's report is also public.

It is short, clear and, as commissioned, restricted to the subject of »methodological criticism«.

So it is not yet a question of whether the content is correct, the ascertaining of facts is appropriate and the conclusions are plausible.

It's all about the theoretical tools.

Nobody can have a say in everything else because the work is not even known.

It is also highly doubtful that the public, who have been excited about the non-publication for 15 months, can't wait to read the 511 pages.

Rather, the whole thing is dealt with at a level where serious doubts about the facts of the matter are no longer considered open to discussion, but rather public battles are fought over the necessary degree of "disgust" and moral condemnation of the "responsible".

On the side, it's also about a lot of money, about claims for damages, about the connection between celibacy, hierarchy, homosexuality and pedophilia, about biographies and self-images, the relationship between church and state.

I just want to make a few remarks on the criminal part of the WSW report for the diocese of Aachen, which in this respect may not be very different from the Cologne report.

It seems suboptimal to me.

As far as the "basic features of the development of sexual criminal law" are dealt with (p. 102 ff.), The report from the High Middle Ages to the 1871 StGB requires exactly nine lines.

Then it goes quickly to the 1960s, mentioning the year 1943.

The reader does not obtain any relevant knowledge here;

this applies equally to the section "Position of the victim".

On the side, it's also about a lot of money, about claims for damages, about the connection between celibacy, hierarchy, homosexuality and pedophilia, about biographies and self-images, the relationship between church and state.

It is true, however, that there is no general obligation to report sexual abuse with criminal penalties, i.e. that no one within or outside the Church makes himself liable for the simple reason that he does not report to the public prosecutor's office a sexual offense that he may have become aware of.

You know that, dear readers, from American educational television, where hardened gangster lovers, as soon as the good cop has revealed to them that they are about to be "up for co-science", give away all their friends and relatives without hesitation.

In this country, "Mitwissenschaft" is generally unpunished, which can be seen from the multitude of completely truthful autobiographies by politicians.

Criminal liability can therefore only exist under three conditions:

• Criminal liability for active participation (in particular: aiding and abetting) requires that a person intentionally and actively supports another person in their intentional act;

• Criminal liability for involvement (perpetrator or auxiliary) in a sexual offense through omission presupposes that a person has a »guarantor position«, that is, is legally responsible for the security of another person's legal interest (Section 13 StGB);

• Criminal liability for obstruction of punishment (§ 258 StGB) presupposes that one person intentionally and unlawfully prevents another person from being punished for a criminal offense.

  This can happen through active action, but also through omission if there is a »guarantor« for state criminal prosecution.

This overview shows that it is not that easy with "responsibility".

This does not apply with regard to the sexual offenses themselves, the investigation and clarification of which the report was not concerned with.

An assumption, derived from general indignation and anger over decades of cover-up, that "those responsible" of the Catholic Church are in principle

all

guilty, does not apply in this simple beauty.

Nor is it appropriate to simply derive criminal liability from moral failure.

Every reader can easily check this by making lists of his moral misconduct and previous convictions and comparing them.

In this country, "Mitwissenschaft" is usually unpunished, which can be seen from the multitude of completely truthful autobiographies by politicians.

The Munich WSW report on the diocese of Aachen considered it "not completely convincing" that there is no criminal law obligation to notify

future

sexual abuse (p. 111).

In the very next sentence, however, it stated that such an obligation could only be of practical use "in rare exceptional cases."

That is very true, but it is certainly good that we talked about it once.

The statements on the criminal liability of persons who do not act directly appear problematic.

A criminal liability for aiding and abetting sexual abuse through omission as well as for negligent bodily harm should be "anything but remote".

If one takes into account the jurisprudence on the criminal liability of prison staff or appraisers in connection with offenses of failed probationers, one can have doubts about this.

The evidence cited in the report for the "realistic risk of criminal liability", a suspension of proceedings according to Section 170 (2) StPO due to a lack of sufficient suspicion, does not really go any further, nor does the reference to the "leather spray judgment" of the 2nd Criminal Senate from 1990. the appeal to a decision of the 4th criminal Senate of 26.7.2007 (4 con 240/07) is certainly misleading, because there is just that, a school principal is liable to prosecution for aiding and abetting by omission

can

, if he

intentionally

a

certain

promotes crime.

Such an intention is generally far removed in cases of episcopal leniency towards sexually assaulting clerics.

Finally, the fact that sexual abuse "regularly also (fulfills) the offense of bodily harm", which "(needs no further explanation)" (pp. 113 f.), Is a claim that is as surprising as it is inaccurate.

An assumption, derived from general indignation and anger over decades of cover-up, that "those responsible" of the Catholic Church are in principle all guilty, does not apply in this simple beauty.

Professional distance

This is not the place for expert opinions on a report on an unknown report, and the columnist does not mean to claim that he knows anything specific better than anyone else.

But if "professional distance (is) the top priority for us" (lawyer Wastl in "C&W"), then "violent attack" is definitely not the right word for the client of the expert opinion to have doubts that WSW have maintained professional distance in all areas.

Incidentally, this also applies to the question of publication.

Wastl:

»In the specific case we are not doing well (with the non-publication) for two reasons in particular: On the one hand, because we have given those concerned our word that our report will appear.

And on the other hand, because our professional competence is massively questioned without the object of criticism, our work, being available to the public for examination. "

That doesn't sound convincing either: Anyone who is commissioned to provide a private expert opinion has no right to “the public” carrying out an examination (?) Of their work;

and he does not have to arbitrarily "promise" to people about whom the report is indirectly concerned that it will be published.

I do not want to comment in detail on the polemics and the accusation of a certain sound of bias that will be raised in the report by Jahn / Streng, because I am not familiar with the Cologne report.

The view:

»If you (...) are not only supposed to judge the legal side, but also behavior according to moral principles, there are certainly situations in which you have to choose a harder language.

You have to make it clear what happened morally in the first place.

Harder language does not show that we are biased .;

it describes the reality ”

(Wastl, C & W)

does not seem to me to be entirely convincing for the description of a scientific report, and that the law firm was commissioned to point out moral (!) misconduct in“ harder language ”has yet to be explained.

The interviewers from "Christ & Welt" seem to have understood the message of who the good and who the bad are.

Finally, you ask:

»You should clear up the cover-up of the past decades.

And now the cardinal is making you cover up against your will. ”

This is a bold assertion against the background that (supposedly) nobody knows the report, the content of which is supposedly“ covered up ”.

We are once again walking on the orbit of public prejudices and indignation statements, on which between the assertion that something may have happened, the statement that the "pressure is increasing" and the demand that someone should "step back" from something usually no more than ten days pass.

more on the subject

Icon: Spiegel PlusIcon: Spiegel PlusDominous balance sheet of the abuse officer: "Terrible how the perpetrators isolate the children in addition to all the suffering" An interview by Annette Großbongardt and Ann-Katrin Müller

We heard that the cardinal had asked the curia in a kind of voluntary disclosure whether he should be convicted of the protection of a suspected demented perpetrator who had died in the meantime and who was previously incapable of interrogation (offense 45 years ago).

I do not know whether the Bishop of Rome has already given an expert opinion on this.

My personal indignation about this case is limited.

And I really don't mean to say that the abusive and destructive attacks by clerics against children were harmless.

But after 45 years, severe dementia and the onset of death, vicarious vengeance could be left out.

There are enough children in 2021 who need the care of the audience.

Icon: The mirror