Bernhard Rasche was abused in his youth in a Catholic boarding school in Franconia. “I had the bed right next to the door,” says Rasche.
–
He just showed up one night and then put his hand under the covers with clear intentions. I was twelve years old – and I slapped him on the knuckles. Then he withdrew it. And then he went one bed further and really abused this classmate of mine almost every evening. And he wasn’t the only one. The order now speaks of at least 16 people affected.
–
–
–
The incidents took place in the early 1970s. Bernhard Rasche is 63 years old today. He earns his money with computer technology. He repressed the experiences of his youth. However, in 2008 he collapsed. “There were a few personal things that hit me hard at the time. Where I was looking for support and didn’t find one, not even in myself.” After much thought, he decided to report the abuse: “Because I realized that the abuse had something to do with my condition.”
–
Legally, the case is long statute-barred. Bernhard Rasche went public and confronted the bishop. Strictly speaking, his case had nothing to do with the Diocese of Würzburg, because the order that ran the boarding school is independent. Nevertheless, until a year ago, Rasche was involved in a discussion group of those affected with the Würzburg Bishop Franz Jung. “I had the feeling during the conversation that there was someone – the bishop and the vicar general – who wanted to listen, who wanted to know something, who wanted to provide information, in other words show a certain degree of transparency.”
–
No church representative on the commission
Ever since the German Bishops’ Conference called for a structure to come to terms with all 27 German dioceses, Bishop Franz Jung has also been trying to clarify the matter. As planned across Germany, there is an Advisory Board for those affected in Würzburg – and since last year there has been an independent review commission. The Advisory Board for Affected Persons then delegates two members to these. There are also people with psychiatric and legal expertise, under the direction of law professor Anja Amend-Traut, who herself does not belong to any denomination.
–
Right at the beginning, in a video talk with the bishop on Instagram, she announced that she had replaced the only church member on the commission, the diocese’s head of human resources, with a criminal lawyer, although the German Bishops’ Conference recommends a church representative in the commissions.
–
Amend-Traut also said in the Insta-Talk: “With regard to this original composition, we as the Würzburg Commission were of the opinion that we did not want to comply with this recommendation in order to be able to ensure the unrestricted independence of the commission. And at this point I would like to thank you, Dr. Jung, thank you once again for your support in this regard.”
–
This step makes it clear how serious the professor is about being independent of the bishop. She has received recognition from many affected and critical theologians. Now her commission in Würzburg wants to follow a path similar to that of the Archdioceses of Cologne and Munich-Freising – and commission a criminal law report. The case of the Diocese of Würzburg could be seen as a positive example. As of mid-February, only 14 of 27 dioceses have even founded these bodies.
–
But despite the efforts, only a few of those affected are interested in participating in the processing structure. Of the six women and men in the Würzburg advisory board, only three are now left – two less than the specified minimum number. When asked why, the Advisory Board for Affected Persons responds in writing upon request. Among others, he cites these reasons:
–
“Those affected by sexual abuse in particular each have their own life story and suffering. Getting involved in a body that deals exclusively with this dire issue is certainly difficult and often retraumatizing for many people. This is certainly a major obstacle. Many do not (also) believe the Church’s will to enlighten. Then why get involved?”
–
Real names – yes or no?
From Bernhard Rasche’s point of view, there are several problems. On the one hand, the question of how the bishop wanted to constitute the advisory board for those affected. Initially, he simply wanted to rename the existing discussion group the Advisory Board for Affected Persons. But Bernhard Rasche protested. The seats for the advisory board would have to be advertised publicly. This is the only way to ensure transparency.
–
That was in 2020. The bishop gave in and publicly re-advertised the Advisory Board for those affected. A committee of medical experts appointed by him should select the Advisory Board for those affected from applications. Finally, about a year ago, six affected people came together.
–
But again there were discussions. Because there was no agreement as to whether those affected appear on the advisory board with their real names. Bernhard Rasche: “We rightly criticize the lack of transparency, the cover-up and the secrecy. Then these bodies must be exactly the opposite. They have to be open, transparent, clear names should be mentioned. And that wasn’t possible. And with that, no action is possible for me.”
–
resentment and distrust
Legitimate interest in transparency collided here with the legitimate need for protection of the traumatized. But that’s not all. It can be heard from those close to those affected that the members sometimes had bitter arguments – for example about how much the committee should share internal information with the diocese or how much say those affected should have in studies. According to the Würzburg newspaper Main-Post, some would not have applied because they had experienced a “toxic atmosphere”. The Advisory Board for Affected Persons states in writing: “The current Advisory Board has no interest in answering questions from the past.”
–
Bernhard Rasche and another member resigned after the discussion about real names – another person was recently voted out by the other advisory councils for those affected. “The way the spokeswoman communicated internally and externally was permeated by resentment and distrust, so that a trusting cooperation was no longer possible,” explains the advisory board on request, the diocese does not want to comment on this. The deselected member of the advisory board gives Deutschlandfunk Kultur another reason: she rebelled too much against the diocese during her work. Details of this conflict are not publicly available.
–
Absurd situation in the Commission
Since they were voted out, the remaining members have appeared publicly with their names. On request, the advisory board does not want to name any professions. But you can find them on the internet. One employee of an organization classified as Pentecostal and two Catholic religion teachers remained on the Advisory Board. One of the religion teachers was sent by the Advisory Board to the Commission for Enlightenment. Which now leads to the somewhat absurd situation that the only person with church connections in the independent investigation commission is a person affected – because the professional license of religion teachers depends on the blessing of the church.
–
The chairwoman of the investigation commission, Anja Amend-Traut, thinks it is important “that those affected also swim free in a certain way and in future no longer have to face the accusation that they are not independent”.
–
It is of course particularly serious for those affected when other affected people say: “We cannot join the work of the Advisory Board for Affected Persons because independence is in question.” However, Amend-Traut emphasizes that the Advisory Board for Persons Affected must speak for itself in this matter : “There are two different bodies and we are independent of each other.” That also means: If the Advisory Board for Affected Persons does not act itself, then that is their right.
–
The protection of those affected
So far, the advisory balance of the advisory board has been limited. Only one person has sought advice from him within a year. It is possible that the closeness of the members of the advisory board to the church inspires little trust among those affected who no longer want to have anything to do with the church.
–
The independent lawyer Ulrich Wastl demanded at the presentation of the Munich abuse report: “It is urgently necessary to create a protected space for victims in which they can express themselves. And protected means that there is no one sitting opposite them who is wearing a white collar with a black shirt.” Say: The church or its premises are not a protected space.
–
What do people in Würzburg think of this demand? The Advisory Board for Affected Persons makes it clear that the protection of those affected is his top priority. In the meantime, he decides about new members himself – the bishop is only present if the advisory board expressly requests it.
–