Social Minister Eva Pawlata expressed surprise at Bishop Glettler’s critiques of a significant study on abuse allegations at the Martinsbühel girls’ home. Glettler called for further investigation, citing concerns about the study’s scientific rigor and the need for more interviews. While acknowledging abuse claims, he defended the accused sister, prompting Pawlata to criticize his stance as a setback for victims. The research report, based on extensive interviews, aims to address the longstanding allegations surrounding the facility.
Social Minister Reacts to Bishop’s Statements
In a recent interview with the ‘Tiroler Tageszeitung,’ Social Minister Eva Pawlata (SPÖ) voiced her astonishment at Bishop Glettler’s comments regarding a significant study on the abuse allegations at the now-closed girls’ home in Martinsbühel. The bishop raised concerns about the scientific rigor of the research and suggested a lack of comprehensive perspective, a critique he highlighted in the preface of the book ‘Learning Humility,’ which has just been released. The Diocese of Innsbruck supported Glettler’s position in a detailed statement on their website, emphasizing that as the research expanded from its initial focus, it became apparent that ‘the scientific quality criteria could no longer be met due to time constraints.’
Bishop Calls for Further Investigation
Bishop Glettler has since advocated for a more thorough investigation into the situation at the Thurnfeld home in Hall in Tirol, a location he is particularly concerned about due to the welfare of the sisters currently residing there. He expressed the need for a broader range of interviews beyond the two individuals who initially came forward. Following the study’s publication, a significant amount of documentation was discovered in the Thurnfeld archives, which is crucial for understanding the broader context of the situation. While allegations of sexual abuse have been acknowledged, the bishop pointed out that the accused sister has contested these claims, resulting in conflicting statements.
The statement from the diocese defended Glettler against accusations of neglecting the victims, labeling such claims as ‘infamous insinuations.’ In response, Pawlata found Glettler’s remarks perplexing, stating, ‘This represents a clear step back in addressing the injustices suffered.’ She criticized the bishop’s assertion of unscientific claims, which project leader Dirk Rupnow refuted, arguing that it undermined the credibility of the entire author team and trivialized the victims’ experiences.
Pawlata also highlighted that while certain institutional structures may have contributed to the violence, the responsibility ultimately lies with the perpetrators. She remarked, ‘Any apology that includes a significant ‘but’ casts doubt on the sincerity of the reparations. I struggle to understand the bishop’s resistance on this matter.’
The comprehensive 400-page research report, which is based on 75 interviews, is part of the ongoing efforts to address the abuse allegations surrounding the girls’ home Martinsbühel. This facility was not operated by the state, but girls were assigned there by governmental authorities. Managed by the Benedictine sisters until 2008, the home became the focus of scrutiny following abuse allegations that surfaced in 2010, prompting around 100 former residents to reach out to the Diocese of Innsbruck’s ombudsman.
In response to the allegations, the state established an independent compensation commission, which, in collaboration with the diocese, initiated a tripartite commission that launched the research project. However, the authors faced challenges in compiling the research report due to limited documentation in the Tyrolean state archive. Although both the state and the diocese commissioned the report, it became clear that not all institutions were supportive of the research efforts, fearing negative exposure through collaboration. This concern was especially evident during interactions with the religious sisters involved at Martinsbühel.