The reference made by the Pope, in his letter written to priests for Maundy Thursday, to “grave scandals” which throw “a dark shadow of suspicion” on priests, has also re-opened the debate on the curse of paedophilia in the main international dailies and periodicals. “Can the Church save itself?”, is the bleak front cover headline in Time (1st April), which contains an extensive dossier investigating and analyzing the various cases of sexual abuse of juveniles by priests that have recently been the focus of scrutiny by the American media and public opinion. “How much longer will it take for powerful institutions to learn that it is not only the crime but the cover-up of the crime that causes damage?”, asks Joanna McGeary referring to the conduct in her view reticent of the Church in response to such misdemeanours. According to McGeary, “the Roman Catholic Church has maintained silence for decades on the immoral, even criminal betrayal of the children in its care, but in this period of openness it ought not to do so”. It has only been John Paul II, in the above-cited letter, who has broken what McGeary calls a “culture of secrecy”, fuelled by the ecclesiastical hierarchies in cases such as these. The Pope addresses himself to priests and speaks of scandals, “but does not directly mention the sexual abuses”, notes Melinda Hennenberger on the front page of the Herald Tribune (22/3), and she adds: “The one paragraph of the Pope’s letter that refers to the scandals appears towards the end of the document, which was not written by John Paul II himself, or read out aloud by him”. “The Pope expresses his sorrow about paedophilia” is the headline in the French daily La Croix (22/3), which contains an article by Yves Pitette describing the press conference at which the Pope’s document was presented, characterized by the strong presence of American journalists . “The American press points out Pitette rebukes John Paul II for not having followed closely the questions of paedophilia involving priests; it thinks that his poor health will prevent him from governing the Church and would like the Pope himself to make a strong declaration, pronouncing the word paedophilia”. “The policy of parents” is the brief unsigned comment that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (26/3) dedicates to the attention being paid to the family during the present election campaign in Germany. We will quote it almost in its entirety “ The parties have rediscovered the family – says the editorial – … Initially it had been the CDU, that had ascertained many years ago that the desire of young couples to have children turned them into social cases; now it’s the Greens and the SPD that are doing so. However, since nothing else can be expected from the parties, their attention is directed not at the family as a whole but especially at that part of it that interests them: the parents. To them is aimed the offer of the Union to gradually increase child allowances to 600 euros; to them too is addressed the rival offer of the SPD to create from nothing ‘a network that will cover the whole territory with kindergartens and nursery schools’, as now envisaged by Chancellor Schröder. The first proposal contains the belated social recognition of the spontaneous dedication of parents to their children, the other eagerly pursues the further nationalization of children. Both proposals are made with one eye on the ballot box. Nonetheless, if the interests of parents were identical to those of children, there would be less family conflicts. A policy of the family worthy of this name ought to rest on those who have no lobby but only needs: the children. ” An interview with the jurist Erhard Denninger conducted by Thomas Darnstädt in the weekly Spiegel (25/3) reopens the question of the controversial vote of 22 March in the Bundesrat, adopting the law on immigration. What Denninger’s comments are focused on is the voting procedure, which entails a block vote for each Land of Germany. The significant title, “ It could have done so“, refers to the attribution of the vote of the Land Berlin-Brandenburg to the SPD, the majority party. Denninger asserts that “what was done ought not to have been done“.
