Thursday, June 24, 2010

Mixa locutus -- causa finita?

The actual "Mixa File" is still not closed -- No clarification of the German Bishops' clarification -- Why the diocese has clearly the directives of the German Bishop's Conference.

Augsburg ( Even after the clarifications of the German Bishops Conference on Tuesday and the letter from Bishop Walter Mixa this Wednesday, the Causa Mixa is still leaving a number of questions unclear.

One question remains in connection with the clarification of the German Bishops Conference (GBC), which on Tuesday had affirmed the alleged "Secret Dossier" on Mixa. It says: "They affirmed that the documents and accusations against him in April 2010 had been passed on to Rome. Pope Benedict XVI acted upon this and accepted Bishop Mixa's resignation."

It is completely unclear on the one hand, if the accusation is to be seen as true, if there has been an orderly investigation and if it on the other hand, there is a causal connection between the Pope's decision and the accusation. One inquiry to this theme led to Matthias Kopp, the speaker for the GBC, who gave the following answer: "Please understand that I can't answer your questions as if they were represented in a text of the presiding Bishops today."

It is certain that in the past week not one of the high-ranking Bishops of Germany knew of the "Secret Dossier" as was aware. Clearly, only the closest circle of the German Bishops Conference, some of the members of the Diocese of Augsburg and the Archbishop of Munich were privy.

It is as good as in the hand that the internal Church correspondence from this circle was directing the FAX and the South German Times. Bishop Mixa himself clearly knew nothing of this correspondence.

"That the press has access to the archive of the Vatican or the Papal Nuncio, is for the time being improbable. Therefore the source is especially nebulous like the reported occurrence," explained Mixa-Attorney Gerhard Decker on Sunday to Even in the 3-sided-correspondence of Bishop Mixa to the Bishops Congregation, where all of these accusations are theoretically arising, it is not certain.

For more confusion yesterday as members of the Augsburg Diocesan administration and by Bishop Walter Mixa approved a "joint clarification" in a passage. "The Diocese will seek, while a final decision for the successor to the Bishop's office is not known, a temporary home for Bishop Emeritus Dr. Mixa. A confirmation is being sought with the Bavarian Bishops per their clarification of the current day." An explanation of the Bavarian Bishops is till now not forthcoming.

It is exiting that on the beginning of July that Bishop Mixa and Pope Benedict will meet. It's somewhat absurd in this relation to point to #3 of the joint clarification: "the invitation of the Holy Father to a meeting in Rome with Bishop Emeritus Dr. Mixa will happily proceed; his resignation and his circumstances will not be the subject of this discussion."

What the Pope will discuss with Bishop Mixa no one knows and whoever knows the Pope knows that he will surely not let himself be limited. How should this resignation with all its open questions not be a topic? It is clear from the 3-page-letter of Bishop Mixa to Rome, that this will be the motive for his visit.

Mixa's criticisms of the instigation of his colleagues stand out in the room like before: "It should have been brotherly. I should have been advised of a leave till all the accusations were thoroughly investigated. Instead they hurried to the Pope and showed the so-called abuse case like a trump, which de facto consisted of not more than six hand-written sentences of a highly dubious, scribbled memo.", he said to "Welt" a few days ago.

Even high-ranking Church officials of the Diocese of Augsburg refrain from criticism. They have, in the matter of the supposed abuse case about Bishop Mixa, clearly not followed the corresponding guidelines of the German Bishops Conference.

It is clear, that the "educational abuse" was already apparent to the Eichstaetter Pastoral Associate L. already on the 25th of March 2010 in Augsburg. In conjunction with the directives of the German Bishops Conference: "The accredited agent researches the circumstances and is the contact person for the law enforcement authorities."

Accordingly, the accredited agent of the Diocese of Augsburg, i.e. Cathedral Vicar Heinrich hasn't researched this. He has not to-date sought any contact with the suspected victim.

Even in another point the Diocese of Augsburg has clearly violated their own guidelines. The indifference to the complaint was a serious break of the valid directives on the part of the Diocese of Augsburg, as it states: "every complaint or claim of suspicion will be thoroughly investigated. Immediately after becoming aware of suspicion or an incident, the responsible party must commence investigating.
He conducts an interview with the accused, upon which he consults a lawyer. A protocol is to be followed during the interview, for which the responsible party is obliged to follow. With the (presumptive) victim respective his legal guardian will be contacted. According to the protocol, the incident will be assessed and established, how the victim is best to be helped and how to further proceed."

Fact: This did not happen in the Diocese of Augsburg at all. There was no interview with Bishop Mixa and there was no protocol, which would have been undersigned by the participants.

If the victim was approached, may be doubted, for the directives of the GCB states further: "The welfare of the Church goes first to the victim. The defense of the victim from further abuse or public release of information is to be especially avoided. There is also a responsibility for the welfare of the accused. He remains until proven otherwise, innocent. If it is found that the suspicion is groundless, the necessary steps will be taken to restore the good reputation of the person." Presently, there hasn't been any apology to Bishop Walter Mixa.

If one looks exactly at the directives of the GBC and the incidents in the Diocese in conjunction with the alleged victim, then it is clear, that the suppositions of the Diocese of Augsburg could not stand.

On the 16th of June a communication was made by the Diocese: "Those responsible in the Diocese have followed what is just and necessary and appropriate to the directives of the German Bishops Conference and the Freisinger Bishops Conference. The Diocese of Augsburg expressly denies that it had made public any accusations of abuse.

Otherwise the prosecuting attorney's initial inquest was not known at the of Bishop Emeritus Walter Mixa of the Diocese of Augsburg's signing of his resignation."

This supposition is in any event in complete contradiction to the copy of the original act of the State Prosecuting Attorney. From him it was clear, that the Diocese even previously must have known of the alleged abuse case.

In the memo concerned, by Augsburger Pastoral Assistant F., who advocated as a "representative for possible victims of sexual and physical violence", said elsewhere: "On March 25 2010 I have spoken about the case with Mr. Heinrich [Responsible Party for Abuse in the Diocese!]. Bishop Mixa had incidentally signed his resignation on 21 April 2010.

Even a Church critic like Alan Posener had stated in Cicero, that Mixa is being treated unjustly. Posener maintains, that Mixa has the same rights as every other Citizen has. "That belongs to his personal rights, which follow, that the worth of a man is unassailable." Fact: The actual "Acta Mixa" is not closed.

No comments: