澳门赌场注册,博狗网上赌场

Professor Nicole Priesching: "For children and young people who have suffered sexual violence at the hands of clerics within the Archdiocese of Paderborn, these acts are part of their own life story. However, many cases were not documented and insufficient protective measures were taken. In addition to the acts of sexual violence they experienced, the victims thus suffered further injustice. The aim of the study is therefore to scrutinise how the Paderborn management staff dealt with the accused priests and those affected. Likewise, the experiences of those affected are to be analysed and exemplified. Last but not least, those affected should also be given a place in the history of the Archdiocese of Paderborn, in which they have not yet been visible. We want to give them a voice."

Following the 2018 MHG study (for: M(annheim)-H(eidelberg)-G(ie?en), exact title "Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests, deacons and male members of religious orders in the area of the German Bishops' Conference"), individual dioceses began to entrust law firms with the preparation of expert opinions in which the behaviour of the respective personnel managers towards perpetrators and accused persons was to be investigated and evaluated, for example in the archdioceses of Cologne, Munich and Berlin. However, the legal reports did not always fulfil the wishes of those affected and church members for transparency and comprehensibility. In addition, they mostly remained in legal jargon. Furthermore, the expert opinions lacked sufficient historical contextualisation. For this reason, more and more dioceses decided to support a historical reappraisal, including Paderborn after Münster.

As a historical investigation, this study poses the following questions: Under what conditions were priests able to perpetrate sexual violence? What were the guiding principles for the Paderborn leadership in dealing with accused priests and victims? What experiences did victims of sexual violence have in their immediate environment? What factors led to changes? The aim is to reconstruct worlds of meaning and sense, forms of practice and communicative dynamics in which perpetrators, victims, so-called "bystanders", i.e. people who can be understood as "passive co-knowers, listeners, witnesses", and in the broadest sense politics and society were or are involved. This also means analysing the overlaps between church, politics and society and not looking at these areas separately. For the long period under investigation from 1941 to 2002, a historical approach that looks at developments makes sense. In this way, the practices, possibilities and limits of action in cases of accusations of sexual violence can be placed in their historical and church-historical context.

The study consists of two parts. The first part examines the sexual violence of priests in the Archdiocese of Paderborn and represents the "abuse study" in the narrower sense. The second part, on the history of priestly training in the Archdiocese of Paderborn, focuses on the development of images of priests, efforts at reform and their limits. Studies that rely exclusively on interviews with those affected from a social science perspective often adopt the image of priests held by those affected without integrating it into a wider spectrum or developmental dynamics. This study therefore also attempts to make a contribution to the contextualisation of the topic in terms of church history. Historical studies on the work of priests in their parishes or other fields of activity could provide further insights. There is still a research gap here. A historical study is not concerned with a legal assessment of the accusations.

In research on Catholicism, the thesis of the decline of the Catholic milieu since the 1950s is part of the established historical picture. A turning point was reached at the end of the 1960s as a result of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) on the one hand and social change processes in West Germany on the other. The question arises as to what significance these processes of change in Catholicism and the decreasing ties of Catholics to fixed organisational structures such as parishes and Catholic associations had for dealing with sexual violence in the church. The role of the "bystander" comes into play here in particular. As sexual violence by priests often occurred in the context of "parishes", the role of the individual parishioners who were "bystanders" must be analysed. How did "rumours" arise and how were they dealt with? How was "knowledge" passed on when local priests changed? At the same time, questions need to be asked about the changing role of priests in parishes and the effects of structural reforms, for example in view of the shortage of priests since the 1990s. This study can be a building block for research into these comprehensive questions of church history. Overall, however, there is still a lack of in-depth research on the history of parishes in the Archdiocese of Paderborn.

Written sources:

• Personal files of accused priests were examined. This also included files that were not included in the MHG study. Among these were personnel files and special files. For the period under investigation, there were no regulations governing the keeping of personnel files. As a result, many allegations are only incompletely documented. Some of them never even found their way into the personnel or special files at all. Special files were created for clerics who had been reported for disciplinary offences. These offences included complaints from the congregations, problems with alcohol and celibacy on the part of the clergy and even criminal offences, including allegations of sexual violence against minors. The special files were and are stored separately from the personnel files. They were labelled under different names and there were different storage locations. Historical special files on "priests with problems" formed a closed collection.

• The archbishop's secret archive was examined. Contrary to the canonical regulations, no summaries of judgements or results of preliminary investigations were handed down. Canonical regulations are rules that originate from the canon law of the Catholic Church.

• In individual cases, further archival records were consulted, including parish files, which contain information about clergy working there.

• The already catalogued estates of Archbishops Lorenz Jaeger and Johannes Joachim Degenhardt as well as Theodor Wilmsen, who was responsible for priestly care between 1974 and 1981, were consulted.

• Further holdings of the current registry and administration were examined.

• In the case of clergy who moved between different dioceses, the researchers asked in individual cases for access to the holdings from other dioceses, and files from state archives were also consulted on a case-by-case basis.

• In individual cases, the state archives were consulted.

• Files from the intervention centre of the Archbishop's Vicariate General were consulted.

• Laicisation files on accused priests in the Archbishop's Office were consulted.

• Files relating to the Leokonvikt and the seminary in Paderborn were inspected.

Interviews were also conducted with those affected and contemporary witnesses:

• Namely with Hans-Josef Becker, Alfons Hardt and Wilhelm Hentze

• With five other (former) employees of the Archbishop's Vicariate General, who were anonymised

• With 54 victims and confidants who were anonymised. 20 people reported experiences of sexual violence as minors during Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger's term of office. 21 interviews were conducted with victims and their relatives during Archbishop Degenhardt's time in office.

This study focuses on a qualitative analysis of the personnel and special files of the Archdiocese of Paderborn and an evaluation of the interviews using oral history methods. In this type of interview, which falls within the context of historical studies, interviewees are not interrupted in their flow of speech and the interviewer intervenes as little as possible.

The personal rights of interviewees, accused persons, affected persons and co-respondents are protected by pseudonymisation and anonymisation in accordance with the applicable archive laws and the General Data Protection Regulation. With regard to written sources, the names of accused persons are therefore only mentioned if their death occurred more than 40 years ago. If this date could not be determined, a period of 100 years after birth is assumed instead. The names of all other accused persons are pseudonymised using a code number and other details (places, years, sources) are anonymised. The names of those affected and those in the know are not mentioned and other details are anonymised. (Relative) persons of contemporary history who were in the public eye permanently or in relation to relevant events are not pseudonymised.

In order to prevent the identification of interviewees or to make it possible only with disproportionate effort, an identification number is given for (former) employees of the Vicariate General and other data (e.g. location and time) is anonymised. In the case of interviews with affected persons and co-respondents, several code numbers are also used for one interview. The names of interviewees are only mentioned if they are (relative) persons of contemporary history.

Those affected were involved in the research process in various ways. Firstly, the researchers conducted interviews with them. Information about the research project from the Archdiocese of Paderborn and public appeals in external media made it possible to conduct interviews with around 40 of those affected. The project team also provided insights into the progress of the research project at the annual meetings of those affected in the archdiocese. Finally, regular dialogue took place with the representatives of those affected.

How is sexual violence defined?

The study was based on a broad definition of sexual violence. In line with other studies, sexual violence is defined as follows in accordance with the definition of the Independent Commissioner of the Federal Government for Child Sexual Abuse Issues: "Sexual abuse or sexual violence against children is any sexual act that is carried out on or in front of girls and boys against their will or to which they cannot knowingly consent due to their physical, mental, intellectual or linguistic inferiority. The perpetrator uses his or her position of power and authority to satisfy his or her own needs at the expense of the child [...]. The acts that are labelled as sexual abuse cover a wide range. They range from verbal sexual innuendos to physical assaults, such as helping with sports. There are sexual acts on the child's body (hands-on), such as French kissing or manipulation of the genitals, as well as severe forms of sexual abuse, such as oral, vaginal and anal penetration. There are also cases of abuse in which the child's body is not touched (hands-off), e.g. when perpetrators masturbate in front of a child, exhibit themselves or deliberately show them pornographic images or ask them to perform sexual acts on themselves - or in front of a webcam, for example."

The term sexual violence therefore refers to all acts against sexual self-determination, from serious abuse, hands-on or hands-off offences to verbal boundary violations, and takes into account the asymmetry of power.

Wherever respect for personal rights permits in this study, the alleged acts are described in order to make differences visible and to separate the description from an interpretation. Where a description of specific acts would involve a violation of personal rights, the terms sexual violence or sexual boundary violation are used as a substitute. However, even here it is not possible to draw a clear distinction, as the transitions are fluid or the sources are not unambiguous. Even the question of when minors are involved cannot be answered unambiguously. The researchers are guided here by the legislator. Until December 1974, minors came of age at the age of 21, from January 1975 at the age of 18. A historical study is not concerned with a legal assessment of the accusations.

Terms "perpetrator" and "accused"

Perpetrators are those persons whose guilt has been proven either by regular criminal proceedings or by proceedings under canon law, as well as those who have admitted the accusations in whole or in part to the episcopal authorities. The term "accused" therefore refers to all those persons who cannot be definitively proven to be perpetrators on the basis of the sources, but whose accusations can nevertheless be regarded as plausible. This use of language has now become established in German reappraisal studies.

Reported cases of abuse in the Archdiocese of Paderborn

At the beginning of the study, the following figures were available from the MHG study, which was published in 2018: For the period between 1946 and 2014, there was evidence of 111 clerics, religious orders with a mission and permanent deacons in the Archdiocese of Paderborn who were accused of "abuse, crossing a boundary or assault". The proportion of accused persons in the total number of clergy in the Archdiocese of Paderborn was therefore 4.44 per cent. There were also indications of 197 people affected at the time.

The Paderborn researchers have since been able to correct these figures. According to their surveys, there is now evidence of 210 accused persons and 489 affected persons for the study's investigation period from 1941 to 2002 (which is shorter than the investigation period of the MHG study from 1946 to 2014). The proportion of accused persons to the total number of clergy in the Archdiocese of Paderborn remains almost the same at 4.35 per cent. The reason for this is that the dioceses that took part in the MHG study, including Paderborn, initially reported the number of existing personnel files. The review of these files was then carried out by employees of the dioceses, not by the MHG research group itself. In the data entry form, the Archdiocese of Paderborn reported "2,459" as the number of personnel files. The following was added by hand: "In the archdiocese, there are also remainders from personnel files that no longer exist for 2,567 individuals." The research group of the MHG study did not ask about these "remainders". The 4.44 per cent determined results from the fact that a total number of approx. 2,500 clerics was assumed on the basis of the personnel files examined. If a total of approx. 5,000 people had been reckoned with at the time, which is what the information on the registration form would have indicated, then the proportion would have been 2.22 per cent.

After an extensive quantitative survey of all personnel files and their preliminary forms or residual holdings, the researchers at Paderborn University have now determined a total number of 4,825 clerics who worked in the Archdiocese of Paderborn between 1941 and 2002. This results in the aforementioned proportion of 4.35 per cent.

The significant increase in the number of those affected from 197 to 489 shows that a development has been set in motion here that cannot be considered complete. Numerous victims have come forward in response to media appeals to eyewitnesses, which were repeatedly made as part of the study. In addition, further reports have been received from those affected in the dioceses, including Paderborn, in recent years. In this respect, the figures are snapshots that allow statements to be made about the reported cases of sexual violence in the Archdiocese of Paderborn. However, a field of unreported cases must also be assumed, the extent of which can only be speculated about.

During Jaeger's term of office, there were 3,995 priests working in the Archdiocese of Paderborn. During Degenhardt's term of office, there were a total of 2,892.

During Jaeger's term of office, the names of 144 accused and 316 affected persons are known. During Degenhardt's term of office, there were 98 accused and 195 affected persons.

There are accusations against the Paderborn archbishops Jaeger and Degenhardt. However, it has not been possible for the researchers at Paderborn University to evaluate these against the background of the sources available. So far, they have been based exclusively on reports from those affected. There is no parallel tradition in contemporary files. According to these, Jaeger was accused of a hands-on offence in a children's home during his term of office as archbishop. The accusation was made in the 2020s. As far as the authors of the study know, there were two accusations against Degenhardt dating back to the 2020s by the end of August 2025. Both cases were hands-on offences. One accusation, which was made by the same person who also accused Jaeger in one case, relates to a one-off offence before Degenhardt was appointed archbishop.

Sources provide an insight into the past, but do not represent it. Contextualisation is therefore required, but this is not possible in the present cases. On the one hand, there is a lack of further evidence to verify and categorise the accusations against Jaeger and Degenhardt; on the other hand, the statements were made in connection with application procedures. In the broadest sense, therefore, they were made in the context of an expert assessment. This does not mean that the researchers wish to cast doubt on the validity of the allegations. However, in order to protect the personal rights of the persons concerned, a further source-critical categorisation must be dispensed with. This does not contradict the decision of the Archdiocese, which has categorised the present applications for recognition of suffering as plausible within the meaning of the guidelines of the German Bishops' Conference.

Note: On 9 October 2025, after completion of the manuscript, the Archdiocese of Paderborn provided comprehensive information about the allegations against the former Archbishops Jaeger and Degenhardt, thereby creating transparency.

What hurdles did victims have to overcome in order to report a priest for sexual violence?

In addition to the victims and their families, historical studies have also focussed on the "bystanders" and "guardians". These people had at least a certain idea (implicit knowledge) or even more concrete (explicit) knowledge about acts of abuse in their environment. They were potential or actual contact persons for those affected. The accounts of the interviewees in this study suggest that they did not find contact persons among either lay people or clerics. Rather, many adults in supervisory and management positions looked the other way. The "watchdogs" also included the priests and deans immediately superior to the accused. They were often the first point of contact for relatives. Overall, however, the hurdle for local clergy to inform the archdiocesan authorities about accusations of sexual violence was high. The reasons for this were the fear of suspecting an innocent person and of provoking conflict in the community if the complaint became known.

The "knowledge" about cases of sexual violence initially depended on the exchange of information and the willingness to report locally. Rumours played a major role in this. Rumours could take on the function of "informal reports", which the authorities could not ignore on a permanent basis. However, the inhibition threshold was very high. The argument of not wanting to damage the reputation of the church played a major role throughout the entire period. It was generally easier and more likely for a foreign priest from another parish to be reported than one's "own" priest, as the latter led to more polarisation locally.

Parents who were aware of sexual offences committed by priests were usually reluctant to report them within their social environment or to secular or church authorities. Sexual offences against children were often not considered worthy of sanction in the lives of the interviewees. Furthermore, the social position of the perpetrator, that of the family of the person concerned and the local circumstances determined the assessment of sexual violence.

Rumours forced the archbishop's authorities to intervene in order to eliminate a "nuisance" or avoid a public scandal. Even during the National Socialist era, it was generally the case that offences were made public if an agreement had already been reached on the perpetrator's guilt. If this was not the case, however, those reporting and those affected had to reckon with repression.

Members of the parish and lay committees would also have had the opportunity to take measures to protect those affected. However, this was often not done because accusations were not taken seriously. An investigation was often not supported. In many cases, allegations were hushed up.

During Jaeger's term of office, however, there were numerous reports from parishes to the archbishop about sexual violence. These show that the sanctioning of the accused priests was regarded as an internal church matter. If the priest was transferred, they were usually satisfied.

Even during Degenhardt's time in office, the threshold for local priests and deans to inform the archbishop's office of allegations of sexual violence by a priest was high. In some cases, Degenhardt also exerted influence on those affected and their relatives to refrain from making reports. In this respect, many deans assumed that they were tacitly expected to exert pressure on those affected in order to avoid reports. This expectation often coincided with the social environment in the community. The consequence of the spiral of cover-up was that those affected remained at the mercy of the accused priests.

Despite these high hurdles, numerous accusations were also received by the vicar general's office under Degenhardt. As late as 2001, when public pressure on the bishops had increased significantly, Degenhardt spoke of individual cases. This individual case theory was also represented internally and this impression was supported by trivialising figures of speech such as "unfortunate offence", "misstep" or "unfortunate behaviour". In this way, Degenhardt, his vicar general Kresing and the personnel department heads denied the extent and causes of sexual violence until the end of the investigation period in 2002.

How did the personnel managers deal with accusations?

In the case of allegations of sexual violence by priests, initial investigations were mostly carried out by superior priests and deans. This was because the archbishop initially regarded such allegations as complaints. The deans had to assess these complaints. They took into account the mood in the parish, their own attitude towards the accused priest, whether he was recognised in the parish and fulfilled his work duties, whether the complainants were practising Catholics and whether their family life conformed to Catholic norms, as well as possible advantages and disadvantages of transferring the priest.

Accusations of sexual violence only became a "matter for the boss" if they were already known in the parish or if there was a threat of secular criminal proceedings. Archbishop Jaeger then initiated a formal investigation into the allegations, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s. During the period of National Socialist rule, Jaeger also initiated criminal proceedings before the ecclesiastical court in several cases. This was particularly the case when secular court proceedings had already taken place.

The decisive factor for the further handling of accused priests was whether they showed remorse, which in the archbishop's view indicated future obedience. If the priest showed remorse, he was allowed to continue working in parish pastoral care, hospitals or retirement homes after a certain period of time, despite a secular conviction. A transfer to another diocese was also possible.

The 1960s marked a turning point. From then on, Jaeger delegated more decisions about further assignments to therapists and psychiatrists. During this time, the number of secular criminal proceedings against priests also increased. With an increasing decoupling of secular and ecclesiastical institutions due to the change of government in NRW and the institutionalisation campaigns at the end of the 1960s, Jaeger's options for placing priests under supervision for proven offences were reduced. At the same time, the image of the church changed after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) from a "punitive" to a "healing" church, which promoted the pastoral and therapeutic treatment of priests. Sanctions were mainly imposed in connection with secular condemnation and aimed to have a public impact. Jaeger mostly refrained from conducting his own investigations.

Throughout his time in office, Jaeger only took protective measures for potential further victims in individual cases. These were limited to the prohibition of individual contacts.

Under Archbishop Degenhardt, therapeutic programmes for accused priests were continued. According to Degenhardt, the main purpose of the therapy was to strengthen the priest's existence for a "new beginning".

Allegations of sexual violence were treated as "complaints" about priests by Degenhardt and his vicar general Bruno Kresing, as they had been before with Jaeger. The accused cleric was first summoned and questioned about the allegations. As long as accusations were not publicised, Degenhardt rarely resorted to formal sanctions in the sense of disciplinary law (warnings and reprimands) until the end of the 1990s, even in the event of an admission of accusations.

The transfers were not punitive transfers or dismissals. Rather, Degenhardt chose the route of a "voluntary resignation". Such an informal procedure was simpler and quicker and did not involve any criminal judgement. From a formal point of view, the cleric thus remained unencumbered by accusations of sexual violence.

In the 1980s, priests were also transferred during ongoing secular investigations. In contrast to Jaeger's time in office, transfers from the Archdiocese of Paderborn to another diocese hardly played a role under Degenhardt. This was possibly due to the shortage of priests. However, with the spread of the internet, transfers at the end of the period under investigation offered less and less opportunity for an "unencumbered" new start, as knowledge and/or rumours could spread quickly.

Under Degenhardt, no measures were taken to protect those affected either.

The adoption of the papal decree "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (SST, German: "The protection of the sanctity of the sacraments") under John Paul II in 2001 and the guidelines of the German Bishops' Conference in 2002 represented a turning point. Until then, hardly any disciplinary or punitive measures in the sense of canon law had been issued during Degenhardt's term of office, but this now changed. Alfons Hardt, then head of the personnel department, initiated the reforms in the Archdiocese of Paderborn. From then on, there were clear recommendations on how to deal with the accused and those affected. In March 2002, a "Sexual Assault" working group was set up in the Vicariate General. The group of people who were informed in the event of accusations was expanded and formalised.

Which groups of people within the church knew about the cases of abuse?

It was not only the inner circle of the diocese management that knew about sexual violence by clerics. In addition to the victims and their families, there were so-called "bystanders" and watchdogs, i.e. people or groups who had at least a certain idea (implicit knowledge) or even more concrete (explicit) knowledge about acts of abuse in their environment. These included superior priests and deans, parishioners, lay committees, neighbours and friends.

In the Archdiocese of Paderborn, the following responsible persons had knowledge of allegations of sexual violence: Formally speaking, the archbishop held the highest leadership authority in the archdiocese. Under Archbishop Degenhardt, however, there are many statements from contemporary witnesses that emphasise the strong role of Vicar General Bruno Kresing, who held the office from 1974 to 2002. In the event of serious allegations, the head of personnel usually contacted the vicar general for further consultation.

There were various committees in which the issue could be dealt with:

The Bishops' Council was the most high-calibre and smallest committee in terms of personnel. It consisted of the archbishop, the vicar general, the auxiliary bishops and the official. The members met in the bishop's house. As no minutes were taken here, it is not possible to say to what extent accusations of sexual abuse were discussed. According to the findings from other dioceses (e.g. Trier), it is probable. A file note from Vicar General Kresing from the 1990s shows that the matter of an accused cleric was discussed in both the Spiritual Council and the Bishops' Council, which is also an indication of this.

The Spiritual Council was an advisory body in which the archbishop, vicar general, suffragan bishops and official also took part, as well as all heads of department. As the Archbishop decided who he awarded the title of Spiritual Councillor to, he also had an influence on the composition of this group of people. Minutes of the meetings have existed since 1988. It can be seen from them that the main topics discussed here were larger church policy issues, but also parish matters. Regular items were also appointments to positions and the appointment of pastors. The names of accused clerics in connection with problematic behaviour are also regularly mentioned. The personnel files sometimes contain references to discussions in the Spiritual Council concerning the transfer of the accused cleric. However, it is not clear from the minutes whether and to what extent those involved were informed about the allegations. Contemporary witnesses, who were members of the Spiritual Council at different times, tend to describe how accusations of clerics were only briefly addressed or paraphrased.

It is unclear to what extent cases of sexual abuse were also discussed in the staff conferences. There are no minutes of the staff conferences. The members were the archbishop, the vicar general, the head of the personnel department, the rector of the seminary and the suffragan bishops. Overall, individual cases seem to have taken up very little space. According to one contemporary witness, "problem cases" were also discussed there. Others, however, reported that accusations of sexual violence against priests were not discussed there, while another recalled insinuations. A letter from Horstkemper, the head of the personnel department, to a convicted perpetrator (Salmen) from 1968 shows that the personnel conference chaired by the archbishop decided to transfer him. As the Salmen case was public knowledge, the background to this transfer must have been clear to everyone at the staff conference. It was only from 2001 onwards, as a result of the SST, that the personnel conference explicitly discussed the handling of allegations of sexual violence by clerics. Occasionally, auxiliary bishops also had knowledge of cases by participating in staff conferences or visiting accused priests during visitations. However, there are only isolated references to this and no general conclusions can be drawn.

Accused priests were often transferred. Some were employed in categorical pastoral care (hospitals, old people's homes), some as confessors in a nunnery. There were also therapists who looked after accused priests. These measures expanded the circle of confidants, although the size of this circle and the extent of the "knowledge" remained blurred, depending on the communication within the institutions concerned. Some of those accused were placed under supervision in their new parish and were no longer allowed to take on certain tasks (teaching, youth pastoral care). However, not every priest knew about the criminal record of a cleric who was placed under his supervision. Also, in the monasteries where the accused spent a "period of penance", the community was not openly informed about the background, so that often only the superiors knew.

What developments in secular law had an impact on the treatment of accused priests during the period under investigation?

During the period under investigation, secular law strengthened the right to sexual self-determination over the moral judgement of sexual acts. Canon law did not follow this development. Even after the revision of canon law in 1983, sexual violence against minors was considered a violation of the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"), which included the violation of priests' vow of abstinence (celibacy).

What was the legal basis for dealing with accused priests during the period under investigation?

At the time of Jaeger's inauguration, the "Codex Iuris Canonici" of 1917 (CIC/1917) was in force. During Degenhardt's term of office, a new version of canon law came into force in 1983 (CIC/1983). Further relevant legal provisions were issued by instructions of the Holy Office and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1922 and 1962, by the Apostolic Instruction Pastor Bonus from 1988 and in 2001 by the motu proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (SST, German: Der Schutz der Heiligkeit der Sakramente).

How did Jaeger and Degenhardt actually apply canon law to accusations?

There are two fundamental problems in answering this question:

1. the problem of transmission: the results of preliminary investigations are not preserved in the secret archives in Paderborn. Although corresponding documents can sometimes be found in the special files, it can be assumed that there are gaps in the records here too. See the notes under "Sources".

2 The assessment of actions:

Does room for manoeuvre exist with regard to the obligation to conduct a preliminary investigation?

The CIC/1917 recognises the concept of a preliminary investigation as an "inquisitio specialis" (can. 1939 CIC/1917). It is left to the "prudent judgement of the local Ordinary" whether "there are sufficient indications to initiate an investigation" (see can. 1942 and can. 1946 CIC/1917). However, the Instruction of 1922 did mention corresponding procedural rules for cases reserved to the Holy Office. CIC/1983, which makes the initiation of a preliminary investigation obligatory (can. 1717 § 1 CIC/1983), also grants room for manoeuvre ("the Ordinary receives at least probable knowledge").

Despite these restrictions in relation to the situation regarding the transmission of documents and the scope of action granted to the Ordinary, a comparison of different time periods shows that Jaeger carried out preliminary investigations up until the 1950s. From the 1960s onwards, corresponding documents are increasingly missing from the records. There are isolated indications in the files that those responsible made enquiries about accusations.

From the 1990s onwards, a somewhat more formalised procedure exists in individual cases. In the 2000s, following the adoption of the SST (2001), interviews were conducted with the accused in the cases investigated, and in some cases also with those affected and potential confidants.

The aim of the study was to present the standards and practice. In most cases, an assessment of the individual cases in terms of canon law is difficult due to the state of the records, which only allow an unsystematic recognition of the knowledge and reasons for decisions at the time, and can hardly be achieved in a historical study without professional expertise in canon law. For this reason, lines of development and, where it was possible in rare cases, different assessments of accusations by those in positions of responsibility were analysed here. This made it possible to visualise some areas of action. Further investigations into canon law would be useful for conclusive assessments of the behaviour of the two archbishops within the framework of the respective canon law.

What development dynamics does the study describe (historical context)?

The study starts in 1941 and can thus ask to what extent 1945, i.e. the end of National Socialism, represented a caesura. Contrary to earlier research on the so-called "morality trials" in the Third Reich, the admissions against priests for sexual violence during this period cannot be dismissed as anti-church propaganda, although this was always present. For example, there were people who could be considered perpetrators of sexual violence and at the same time became victims of National Socialism in concentration camps. In total, files on twelve Paderborn clerics could be identified who had been accused of sexual violence against minors before a secular court during the National Socialist regime and against whom accusations were made again after 1945.

Although Jaeger himself did not assume the innocence of the priests convicted of sexual offences, he reinstated them in the Federal Republic of Germany, mostly in subordinate positions, referring to the prison sentences they had served. The fact that, from the 1950s onwards, the "morality trials" were interpreted as part of the anti-church measures of the Nazi regime and the church stylised itself as a victim of National Socialism made it easier to reintegrate accused priests. In this way, sex offenders could also be perceived as "resistance fighters" and "representatives of the church", regardless of their individual biographies.

When Jaeger took measures against accused clerics in cases of allegations of sexual violence against minors, these hardly differed from the sanctions that followed a consensual relationship between a priest and an adult woman. In the church-friendly political climate, he refrained from severe sanctions. The room for manoeuvre for the accused thus seems to have increased.

The 1950s in the Archdiocese of Paderborn were still strongly characterised by a Catholic milieu, even if this was beginning to erode at the edges. Up to now, the image of a "sacral" priest, as was typical of the Catholic milieu, has dominated abuse research into the accused. The sacred dimension of the ministry and the resulting clericalism have repeatedly been assumed to be the reason why victims and their families shied away from reporting the abuse to secular or church authorities. In contrast, the researchers found that the clergy did not acquire such a charism of office through ordination alone. This is shown by numerous complaints from parishioners about priests in the vicariate general in the 1950s, for example when they did not fulfil their duties adequately for health reasons or damaged their reputation with excessive visits to pubs. Instead, this official charism had to be established and confirmed within the community. It was therefore the result of a "construction of social reality".

The historical perspective enables a greater differentiation of effective images of priests and their development. In this context, the local church in the form of a parish should also be understood as part of local communities and regional societies. One interviewee stated the following about power relations: "These hierarchies in the village, church, pastor, teacher and the big farmers, they were the ones who could get away with anything." The clergy's many duties as teachers, confessors, organisers of leisure activities and door openers for social advancement were the basis for the high social status in the village. According to the interviews, the authority of priests was therefore more due to their membership of the local power elite than to a sacralisation of the office.

How accusations were dealt with locally depended on numerous factors throughout the entire period under investigation. These included: the popularity of the priest, whether other conflicts existed in the parish, how long and in what function the priest had been in office, whether accusations concerned actions in the school or in the parish, the seriousness of the offences, family and social loyalties, and - especially during Degenhardt's time in office - whether the supply of priests in his own parish remained secure if the accused priest left.

Reforms in the church did not lead directly to the prevention of abuse. After the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), numerous parishioners and lay committees came together to stand behind "their" accused priest. There was still a great willingness to protect the "perfect world" of the Catholic Church, even though the image of the church had changed considerably in some cases. After the Council, there was also a trend in the Church to close the legal eye in favour of a pastoral perspective. In dealing with cases of sexual violence, however, this pastoral perspective primarily benefited the accused. This created a fatal alliance between the church leadership and the congregation in favour of the accused, who were treated with pastoral leniency, while those affected continued to experience marginalisation.

In this respect, it can be said: Whether "conservative" or "progressive" in terms of church policy, one thing they had in common was the attitude in the congregations to protect "their" church. The Catholic Church had become attractive to many believers after the Second Vatican Council in particular because it offered opportunities for participation and identification. Not only constraints, but also incentives for participation can ensure submission to authority. Those accused could capitalise on the political mood in their congregation, dismiss the accusations against them as attacks on the reforms and thus portray them as untrustworthy aggression by the opponents of reform. A progressive perpetrator in a progressive parish enjoyed just as much trust as a conservative priest in a Catholic (residual) milieu.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the perception of sexual violence against minors changed in society as a whole. This was preceded by a slow de-tabooing of experiences of sexual violence due to the achievements of the second women's movement in the 1970s. Initially, the focus was on the experiences of adult women, and from the 1980s onwards also on women's experiences of abuse in their childhood. The first counselling centres were set up for women who had experienced sexual violence in their childhood. The diagnosis of post-traumatic stress syndrome also became established. This made the long-term consequences of traumatic experiences therapeutically accessible.

In the 1990s, media reporting in Germany intensified, with sexual violence by clerics often being linked to criticism of celibacy. However, this has not been substantiated by research. Social influences also included a decoupling of secular and ecclesiastical institutions, a professionalisation of staff in institutional education and disability services, and the development of support services for victims of sexual violence in society as a whole. Against this backdrop, it gradually became easier for victims to report allegations to secular or ecclesiastical authorities from the 1990s onwards.

Archbishop Degenhardt caused general outrage with a dialogue sermon in the summer of 1994 when he declared: "If young men are entrusted more with the care of small children and constantly have to see naked, exposed bodies, touch them and clean them, there is a great danger that they will not be able to resist their desires." After numerous outraged letters from young fathers were received by the Vicariate General, the Archbishop regretted having raised the issue, but at the same time referred to the child psychologist Christa Meves (born 1925), according to whom sexual violence against minors should be interpreted as a consequence of a sexual revolution. Meves, who converted to Catholicism in 1987 and was politically polarising, had already made a name for herself with her Christian-conservative positions.

Until 2001, there were no formal structures for reporting allegations. Priests who became aware of this were guided by informal knowledge or their own interests.

Overall, it can be said that Both archbishops, Jaeger and Degenhardt, showed great leniency towards accused priests, even when they were convinced of their guilt. They showed no understanding towards those affected. Therapeutic help was offered to the accused clerics, if at all, with the aim of strengthening their priestly character and reinstating them as soon as possible.

Did it happen that someone had already attracted attention through inappropriate behaviour before ordination and his ordination was nevertheless approved? How was this justified?

According to the figures available, between 1946 and 2023, around 30 to 40 per cent of candidates for the priesthood resigned before ordination, either during their time in the convent or in the seminary. In the files of the seminary, these are listed as "departures". However, it is not clear whether the candidates left the path to the priesthood voluntarily or involuntarily.

In order to gain an initial impression of this, a total of 40 anonymised samples were examined from the files on "departures" from the Konvikt, which were evenly distributed over the period 1946 to 2002. This resulted in the following observations: Of these 40 students, 24 left voluntarily. The reasons were: Career aspirations had changed, a new subject was chosen, celibacy no longer fitted in with their own life plan, and occasionally criticism of the church was also cited. 13 of the 40 students left involuntarily. Health and psychological concerns were registered. There were problems with discipline. There were also isolated cases in which the rector had doubts as to whether a candidate was willing or able to observe celibacy. One example showed that a candidate had already attracted attention for inappropriate behaviour before being ordained a priest and yet his ordination was approved. How was this possible? In the second half of the 20th century, the assessment of candidates generally had an external and an internal side. On the outside, catalogues of suitability criteria applied, which included very different levels. For example, the questionnaires for the home priest's "certificates" were used to analyse what was important for admission to the Konvikt: "good Catholic" origins (reputation of the parental home), churchliness, which was characterised by commitment and hierarchical ability (subordination), social skills (appropriate behaviour), mental health and good character traits. The internal side of the assessment consisted of the discretionary powers of the so-called forum externum, primarily the director and the rector. The criteria functioned as reference points that could be interpreted and weighted differently. It was perfectly possible for a highly esteemed and long-standing rector like Heribert Schmitz to push candidates through against objections. The argumentative construction for this was called "case of doubt". In cases of "doubt", Archbishop Degenhardt did not re-examine the case and did not review the decision of his rector. On the contrary: in cases of doubt, the candidate was to be ordained. It was therefore sufficient for the rector to regard allegations of sexual violence against a candidate as "dubious" and still recommend him for ordination. He was presumably also fulfilling the unspoken expectations of Archbishop Degenhardt, who was concerned about the shortage of priests. Another motive could have been the understanding and pastoral devotion of the paternal rector Schmitz to "his" priest candidates. The overlap between the pastoral and disciplinary roles of both the archbishop and the rector should be noted here. Structurally, therefore, the influential position of the rector should be emphasised, which gave him a very high degree of personal responsibility as an actor.

Which social milieus did most of those affected belong to? Are there any factors of origin that stand out in particular?

In many respects, the interviewees grew up in a typical childhood in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in the 1950s and 1960s: (temporarily) incomplete families in which the parents were sometimes traumatised by experiences of violence, wanted to forget National Socialism and strived for economic and social advancement. In such constellations, there was often a lack of resources or the will to pay attention to children. Instead, education was often characterised by authority and physical violence. During this time, Catholic sexual morals determined the family policy of the Adenauer government. In North Rhine-Westphalia, denominational schools influenced the educational opportunities and biographies of Catholic children. Sexual hostility was not only prevalent in the church and within the Catholic milieu, but was also part of education and family policy in the Federal Republic. The media, schools and the parental home saw it as their task to educate children in morality and chastity.

On the one hand, the study confirms previous research that those affected came mainly from strictly Catholic families, were hardly sexually enlightened and had already experienced violence or belonged to the group that lived in residential homes or boarding schools. On the other hand, analysing interviews and other first-person documents in which people report on their own lives and experiences makes it seem inadmissible to describe these factors solely as a particular vulnerability of those affected, as this ignores the social power relations. Due to the change of government in North Rhine-Westphalia and the institutionalisation campaigns at the end of the 1960s, the church, school, welfare and welfare policy slowly decoupled. However, the Catholic milieu also continued to change after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and new social forms of being Catholic emerged in the 1970s (hinge years). During Degenhardt's term of office, many interviewees attended secondary school regardless of where they lived and only a few reported major financial problems at home. Their parents had often benefited from growing prosperity since the 1950s. Furthermore, their voices reflect the dissolution of the links between parents, church and school, or these were no longer interpreted as entanglements of power relations, but as a social network.

Nevertheless, the interviews with those affected and their relatives show that only a few children and young people saw the opportunity to confide in third parties during both terms of office. Although the conditions for talking about experiences of sexual violence within their families had improved during Degenhardt's term of office, the barriers to opening up to third parties remained high.