The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe press and the sex abuse crisis of 2010
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 19, 2010
Note: My take on the significance of the election of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan as the new president of the U.S. bishops can be found here: Three keys to reading the Dolan win at the USCCB
* * *
Under the best of circumstances, the Vatican and the secular media struggle to understand each other, and the first half of 2010 was hardly the best of times. As a new wave of the sexual abuse crisis swept across Europe and raised critical questions about Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican officials accused the press of bias, while news reports and editorial pages blasted the Vatican for dishonesty and denial.
Now that the dust has begun to settle, thoughtful figures on both sides realize the need to take a dispassionate look back. Many in the news business want to know if they got the story right, and at least some in Rome — not to mention frustrated Catholics elsewhere — wonder if the Vatican's crisis management strategy, such as it was, backfired.
On Monday, I was in Miami Beach for a gathering of journalists from mainstream secular outlets, sponsored by the "Faith Angle" project of the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. Papal biographer George Weigel and I were asked to lead a discussion of coverage of the crisis, especially its most recent wave.
Among the 20 or so reporters on hand was Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times, whose pieces digging into Benedict's record have been both widely read and controversial. Critics include American Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who called a March 24 story by Goodstein on the Vatican's handling of the case of a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting deaf children "deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness."
The conversation in Miami didn't produce an artificial consensus — and it wasn't designed to — but it did have a lot to say about where things stand vis-à-vis the church and the fourth estate.
* * *
Weigel said that in his view, coverage of the American sexual abuse crisis of 2002 largely got the story right, forcing the church to confront a reality that had been "ignored or downplayed" for too long. By way of contrast, he argued, the coverage in 2010, which focused more on the Vatican and the pope, was marred by "errors in reporting and editorial bias."
Weigel laid out what he called seven "flawed assumptions" which, in his view, ran through much of the 2010 coverage.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Assumption One: The "Omni-Competence of the Papacy"
Weigel said the pope is often styled as an absolute monarch, wielding total control over Catholic life. That's not true either in theory or practice, Weigel insisted. In theory, a pope's power is limited by all sorts of things: church tradition, the Code of Canon Law, the sacramental system, even the rules of logic.
In reality, Weigel said, a pope's influence is also limited by factors such as the competence of his aides and his own shrewdness in diagnosing situations and making appointments. He added that the latter point is part of the dynamic of the papacy of Benedict XVI — this "world-class theological mind," Weigel said, doesn't always seem to have an aptitude for picking subordinates.
Assumption Two: The "World-Class Competence of the Roman Curia"
Weigel said people often succumb to the notion that Vatican officials must be the cream of the Catholic crop, including the notion that they operate "the world's best intelligence service." In reality, Weigel said, the quality of heads of Vatican offices is not notably higher than other systems with which he's familiar — say, the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom — and in some cases it's "much lower."
As an illustration, Weigel claimed that Pope John Paul II was four months behind the news when the sexual abuse crisis broke out in the United States during spring 2002, because of the poor quality of information reaching him through Vatican channels. In general, Weigel argued, the small circle of senior Vatican officials who wield real power, probably no more than 20, do not live in the same "24/7 media universe" as the rest of us.
Assumption Three: A "General Hermeneutic of Suspicion"
Outsiders sometimes conclude, Weigel said, that "there is a will to deceive at the highest levels" of the Vatican. In reality, he said, much of what looks like deception is actually bungling — bred by naiveté, misinformation, or just plain being in over one's head.
A hermeneutic of suspicion, Weigel argued, breeds contorted conspiracy theories, thereby missing "the simplest and truest explanation, which is that these guys were blindsided and scrambled to respond."
Assumption Four: "Institutionalized Hypocrisy"
Many people already don't like the sexual teachings of the Catholic church, Weigel argued, and when violations of that teaching by clergy are not immediately met by draconian penalties, it fuels "gotcha" reporting.
When hypocrisy is presumed to be the root of everything, he said, important bits of context are overlooked. Weigel offered three examples:
•
- A 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law was designed to protect priests from arbitrary abuses of power by bishops, but it also made it harder for bishops to discipline abuser priests.
- In debates over laicization (popularly known as "defrocking"), some experts caution against it on the grounds that once the church cuts ties with a priest, it loses any ability to monitor and control him.
- Weigel also criticized attempts to link the crisis to priestly celibacy, asserting that 50 to 60 percent of the sexual abuse of children occurs in the family — and is therefore committed by people who have never taken vows of celibacy.
•
•
>
Assumption Five: Sex abuse is "a distinctively Catholic problem, and an institutional Catholic problem."
That may be true of Ireland, Weigel said, but it's not in the United States, where data suggests the incidence of abuse among Catholic priests is no higher than among comparable professional groups such as public school teachers — even though sex abuse in other environments doesn't draw anything like the same saturation coverage.
In 2010, Weigel argued, "the Catholic church is arguably the safest environment for young people and adolescents in the country," but there remain other "non-safe environments" that will not be exposed so long as public perceptions treat the sexual exploitation of children as a "Catholic problem."
Assumption Six: "A lack of skill in reading church statements and documents"
The inability of some observers to adequately decode Vatican-speak, Weigel said, sometimes leads to "missing the real stories." He cited Pope Benedict's letter to the Catholics of Ireland, which Weigel said, for the first time begins to "dig into real problems of ecclesiastical culture" underneath the crisis. That point was missed, he said, amid sensational but often ill-informed commentary from the likes of Sinead O'Connor.
Assumption Seven: Confusion about who's a reliable source
Weigel complained that in some news coverage, critics of Benedict XVI have been presented as seemingly neutral "experts." He complained, for example, that victims' attorney Jeffrey Anderson is routinely cited without mention of his "direct financial interest" in sex abuse litigation. He also offered the example of Italian Catholic writer and scholar Alberto Melloni, an exponent of a school of interpretation of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) rejected by Benedict XVI. To present Melloni as an objective source, Weigel argued, is a distortion.
More broadly, Weigel warned against relying too much on alleged Roman insiders — who, he said, are often "low-level munchkins who have no idea what's going on, but are happy to talk over a free cappuccino or a Campari and soda."
* * *
All of that, Weigel argued, illustrates the need for "serious reform in press coverage of the Catholic church."
On the church's side of the ledger, Weigel argued that two chronic problems have to be addressed: 1) What he called "the Vatican's communications debacle," and 2) the lack of "a mechanism for dealing with manifest incompetence, or worse, from bishops." Weigel said that many "serious Catholics," including regular church-goers and big-time donors, have deep reservations these days about the competence of some local bishops. He called the inability to get rid of problem bishops in a timely fashion the church's "single biggest management problem."
Both issues, he said, will have to be faced the next time the cardinals gather in a conclave to elect a pope, because it's not realistic to expect they will be resolved under Benedict XVI.
* * *
In my comments, I raised what has long struck me as the central puzzle about the crisis of 2010: How is it that Pope Benedict XVI, whom insiders regard as the great reformer on the sex abuse issue, somehow became the global symbol of the problem?
I laid out my reading of Benedict's record, which is that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger underwent a sort of conversion experience around 2001, when the sex abuse crisis was dumped in his lap by John Paul II. His willingness to face what he once memorably called the "filth in the church" was fueled by studying case files from all over the world, including the testimony of victims, and by listening to his deputies who met with victims. The story as I know it boils down to this: before 2001, Ratzinger was essentially another cardinal in denial; afterwards, he became the leading force inside the Vatican for a more aggressive response.
Measured not against the sweeping programs for reform that some critics of the church have advanced, but against what was realistically possible, Ratzinger moved the ball farther and faster than most people anticipated, often against strong internal opposition.
If that's so, then why did a handful of cases from decades ago, which came to light earlier this year, cause such an earthquake in public perceptions?
In addition to the flawed assumptions flagged by Weigel, I suggested two other factors — both of which, I think, impeded the Vatican from making a more effective case on the pope's behalf.
First, I argued, the Vatican drew a bad hand, in that the first case to come to light was also the most serious. It involved Peter Hullermann, a German priest who came into the Munich archdiocese for therapy, while facing charges of abuse, when then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was in charge. Hullermann ended up in a Munich parish where he committed other acts of abuse, for which he was eventually convicted criminally.
When the story broke in early March, the immediate response in church circles, both in Munich and in Rome, was to try to insulate Benedict from blame — insisting that the decision to assign Hullermann to a parish was made at lower levels, without the future pope's knowledge. Whether true or not, that response rang hollow for many people, because a bishop still has to take responsibility for decisions made in his name.
Benedict could have said something like, "I'm heartsick over what happened, and with the benefit of hindsight it's clear I should have been more vigilant. I intend to reach out to Hullermann's victims to apologize, and this terrible tragedy illustrates the importance of the reforms we've put into place." Had that been the tone, outsiders might have been more inclined to listen to a defense of the pope on other cases — especially because in the handful of other instances which have drawn coverage, his role was often minor and after-the-fact. Instead, an impression of blanket denial was created, which became the prism for everything else.
More deeply, I also speculated that the Vatican has been hampered in defending Benedict's record because it would imply indicting other senior Vatican officials, and perhaps ultimately tainting the memory of Pope John Paul II. That's a psychological and cultural bridge, I said, that many in the Vatican aren't ready to cross.
Weigel was asked to comment on whether the crisis indeed represents a stain on John Paul's legacy. He conceded the crisis wasn't handled well, especially towards the end when John Paul was already in decline. At the same time, Weigel argued, that breakdown has to be seen in the context of John Paul's broader renewal of the priesthood. Both John Paul and Benedict XVI, Weigel said, have inspired a new generation committed to a "heroic ideal of the priesthood," which, he said, suggests there will be few incidents of abuse down the line.
* * *
Understandably, Goodstein wanted to join the conversation. She said that when she began reporting on the latest wave of the crisis, she largely accepted the claim of "Ratzinger the Reformer," based partly on things that I and others had written.
Yet, she said, the 2010 stories upended that narrative, which placed the responsibility entirely on bishops for the failure to report and remove abusers. This year we learned of one case after another, she said, in which bishops were pleading urgently with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Ratzinger to laicize a known molester, and the CDF rejected those requests. And, she added, we were always told that the CDF had nothing to do with these cases until 2001, but that turned out to be false also. In fact, they were handling them all along.
As a footnote, Goodstein said that much of the reporting was based on documents — though she didn't add this herself, usually documents obtained from victims' lawyers. Those documents, she said, are the most revelatory evidence we have. The documents come from attorneys, she said, because the church sure is not handing them over.
Goodstein's question thus was: Didn't the reporting of 2010 add something to what we thought we knew?
I said that for me, the reporting fleshed out the picture, but didn't fundamentally alter it.
First, it's still true that pre-2001, most sex abuse cases never reached Rome because bishops relied on informal remedies rather than laicization (which requires Vatican approval, and was seen by many bishops as a cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain process). We already knew that before 2001, Ratzinger's approach to the few cases which reached his desk wasn't notably different from other senior Vatican personnel. Thus to produce a 1985 letter in which he urges caution in laicizing Stephen Kiesle of Oakland, for example, is certainly interesting, but not a paradigm-changer.
That go-slow approach in the 1980s and 1990s, I argued, still has to be balanced against expedited handling of hundreds of cases beginning in 2003, when Ratzinger obtained "special faculties" from John Paul II allowing him to waive a canonical trial and to remove an abuser from the priesthood more efficiently.
One can certainly argue that his awakening came late, and that not enough has yet been done — perhaps especially in terms of matching the new accountability for priests with similar accountability for bishops. The fact remains, however, that the Vatican is today more committed to a "zero tolerance" policy because of Ratzinger's impact, both before and after his election.
If that point sometimes got lost earlier this year, it's probably one part a media failure to keep the whole picture in focus, and one part the Vatican's inability to project a different narrative.
Weigel threw in a couple of interesting footnotes. In terms of the response to the crisis under John Paul II, Weigel said that during the late pope's long illness, there was effectively no one in charge — on sex abuse or almost anything else. The then-Secretary of State, Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, was either "unprepared or unwilling," Weigel said, "to become a sort of prime minister as the king was dying."
Weigel also asserted that another element in understanding Vatican culture vis-à-vis the crisis is "the odd influence of the Latin American mind," which he described as "riddled with conspiracy theories." He was likely referring to suggestions from a few Latin American cardinals that media reporting on the crisis, especially in the United States, was calculated to stifle the church's advocacy on issues such as support for a Palestinian homeland.
* * *
We spent a fair bit of time in Miami doing some basic exercises in Vaticanology, which prompts a warning about relations between the Vatican and the media.
Several people, for instance, asked why there never seem to be consequences when somebody in Rome obviously screws up. To take one example, Sodano explosively compared criticism of the pope on the crisis to "petty gossip" during the 2010 Easter Sunday Mass, and yet he continues merrily along as dean of the College of Cardinals. (When Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, later criticized Sodano, he actually got his knuckles rapped.)
I explained that in the culture of the Vatican, the way they typically signal disapproval of a statement from someone at Sodano's level isn't by overtly repudiating it, but rather by not repeating it. Insiders know that silence speaks volumes, although the outside world usually concludes that the guy got away scot free.
Two reactions from reporters are worth recording.
One said that while such insider scoop is interesting, it's of limited journalistic value. Editors won't tolerate sticking in four paragraphs of "Vatican context" into stories to explain every statement or decision that comes down the pike, this reporter said, because it smacks too much of apologetics — i.e., trying to get the Vatican off the hook.
Another reporter made the point that when it comes to the crisis, media outlets have a limited appetite for nuance, because of the stark moral nature of the underlying issue — the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children. In that regard, this reporter said, the media can be as "unchanging and relentless as the church."
The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. He can be reached at jallen@ncronline.org.]
More "explaining away." The
More "explaining away." The Vatican should put p.r. man Allen on its payroll. Maybe it already has paid Allen off by giving him a measure of access that is not enjoyed by reporters who feel they have a duty to be watchdogs, not lapdogs, of the Vatican.
Reply to "More 'explaining
Reply to "More 'explaining away'': More Vatican bashing by Catholo-phobic malcontent. Give it a rest, man! Allen's a respectable journalist. The so-called Fourth estate 'journalists' (hacks) foam at the mouth at the mention of things Papal but say nothing of their own mindless secularism that has all the metaphysical depth of a contact lens!
<<>> Maybe what the Vatican
<<>>
Maybe what the Vatican needs more is changing its internal culture to be more in line with the Gospel.
Thank you, John. Your column
Thank you, John. Your column is the only kind of nuance that appears in this particular media outlet. Even nuanced, however, it's still a sad portrait of our beloved church.
Quote: •Weigel also
Quote:
•Weigel also criticized attempts to link the crisis to priestly celibacy, asserting that 50 to 60 percent of the sexual abuse of children occurs in the family — and is therefore committed by people who have never taken vows of celibacy.
Unquote.
In several European countries, the number of perpetrators who were priest, reported by church persons or church media, ranged between 2 and 4 percent. However, only between 0,1% and 0,2% of adult men are priest. This means that in the best case, a priest is ten times more likely to become a perpetrator, and in the worst case fourty times.
Consequently, Weigel is wrong.
Whether true or not (no
Whether true or not (no source), let's not ignore the fact that the wider problem of sexual abuse if real and would benefit from a Fraction of the news coverage poured on the Catholic scandal. The Catholic ship is turning -- is anyone else?
Must read sources illustrating this problem:
1) US Department of Education by Dr. Carol Shakeshaft (2004): "sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
2) Various media outlets: Public schools, media, US Dept of Education have all covered up for teachers and staff members who sexually abuse children. CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml
Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
Oregonian: "passing the trash in public schools" coverup
http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/02/
schools_cut_secret_deals_with.html
National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/7970
3) Newsweek (April 2010), studies support claim sexual abuse prevelance not a Catholic-only problem: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
A power struggle between two
A power struggle between two institutions with each wanting the other to play it's own game. Yet, in the interest of professionalism, is it not the journalist who is supposed to get it right? be unbiased, track down the sources and understand the context. Why should the language of religion be reinterpreted for the religion reporter? Do we expect that of all institutions or just religious ones and at that, only the Vatican?
Laurie Goodstein got it wrong because of her sources and her lack of putting it in context because she wanted to prove the paradigm. There was terrible wrong doing but I suggest the news industry look also at the criminal justice system and the issues of abuse and neglect during that time period. The Church mirrors civil and criminal processes, including not taking action. Anyone who was a social worker in the '80s will remember the shift that took place within agencies as sex abuse came to the front burner instead of the back burner. Sex abuse was, and still is, a hidden crime.
Excellent points. The
Excellent points. The horrendous abuse was never put in context as a subset of all abuse of the eras in which it occured (or how it was handled by other institutions at the time). Instead, most media were happy to portray this as a Catholic problem.
Interestingly, most jumped on the bandwagon of classifying this as a "pedophile priests" problem instead of a homosexual priest problem by ignoring the demographics of those poor teen boys.
I saw much of the reporting as an indignant and angry backlash to the USCCB's lobbying against national health care reform (as written), as well as the Church's firm and unyielding stance on gay marriage.
John Allen Jr. plays an
John Allen Jr. plays an important and useful role. I still contend that his self-title - "All Things Catholic" - is a misnomer. His pervue is much narrower; it is focused on hierarchy and more specifically the vatican. It should be "all things Vatican".
He incessently promotes the need for journalists, and readers thereof, to better understand, to become more literate re. the vatican, the hierarchy, and "their ways". Pshaah. For example, why should anyone "appreciate" that vatican silence is in fact evidence of disapproval? Oh that I might suffer the blush of embarassment by the traffic cop who snubs me when I run a red light. How trite can one get?
I do hope that in the quietude of his access to the halls of hierarchism, he is equally dedicated to explaining that north americanism, so close to his love of baseball: "I calls em as I sees em".
Yeah, God forbid that we
Yeah, God forbid that we should be asked to understand something that we read! God forbid that reporters actually be expected to report the objective truth, in all its nuance, rather than a subjective opinion or idea! God forbid that the Holy See be given the benefit of the doubt on anything!
Apparently, you subscribe to a Soviet Union-era idea: Guilty until proven innocent?
Dennism, I agree with you.
Dennism, I agree with you.
In addition I was most grateful that at the very end of his long article, Mr Allen quoted comments from two reporters by which I'm sure most journalists live: the fiat of their editors for that which classifies as news rather than "apologetics" and for boldly stated facts rather than "nuanced" facts. Our newscasts and what we call mainstream newspapers are not places where depth can be found. I found this to be the most cogent section of the piece. I also was happy that the NY TIMES reporter "took the stand in her own defense".
Another big thing with which I agreed was Mr. Allen's ending statement of the need for the Vatican to understand the HOW of media-communication.
this says it all for me....
this says it all for me....
"Another reporter made the point that when it comes to the crisis, media outlets have a limited appetite for nuance, because of the stark moral nature of the underlying issue — the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children. In that regard, this reporter said, the media can be as "unchanging and relentless as the church."
I hope the media doesn't let up...'til those Bishops and Vatican folks who looked the other way, or fail to do the moral thing are removed.
The pope "turned" in 2002
The pope "turned" in 2002 only because he was forced to. Any lay person committing a grave moral evil such as his in aiding and abetting future rapes of children, would be remanded to the state for prosecution.
This "public relations problem" Weigel and Allen go on about at every chance will not end until every complicit bishop steps down. These pseudo-journalists are on the wrong side of history.
I attended a talk by Weigel in 2002 wherein he actually chuckled out loud at my question as to why the bishops had not been prosecuted and made to step down. He replied in his characteristic authoritative tone that he was "in communication" with many bishops, and that "we" were making the argument to civil authorities that this was not a state issue but an intra-church issue - to be handled in-house. He was "amazed" at the anger that was coming out over this controversy....Opus Dei member Weigel has absolutely no credentials to be opining on anything. Check out his very thin resume. He makes money off of selling his opinions.
His "perfect society" defense is nothing more than saying criminals, because they wear collars, are above the law.
What has been revealed to date about this crisis is only the tip of the iceberg. Revelations upon revelations will continue to come forth, including the depth of the depravity of priest/bishops pederast rings, their links to undocumented child (boy) prostitution rings, as well as new names of current curia still involved in buying boy prostitutes and still being very adroitly protected. Doubt it? Notice to New York Times: you won't have to dig deep. There's a Pulitzer in it if you invest alittle time and money...
Why do you think there is so much stonewalling going on?
The INTERNAL CULTURE(THERE
The INTERNAL CULTURE(THERE YOU HAVE SAID IT) of the RCC has EVERYTHING to do with what has been going on in the churches, institutions, schools, etc., (ALL OVER THE CATHOLIC WORLD) with the clergy,(priests nuns and brothers) and the PREMEDITATED SEXUAL ABUSE OF (children,the handicapped and the marginalized), How it should be handled is not a problem, as it's not been taken seriously, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT THEY DO! It's ok, you just confess it and it's all gone, til the next time! SACRAMENT(?) OF CONFESSION is UN BIBLICAL."Confess to one another your sins but most of all to God Almighty, when your sorry for your sins"
"GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED" AND HE IS CONTINUALLY BEING MOCKED BY THESE EVIL DOERS.!How long do you think HE will let this go on, now that it is out in the light for all to see???
The fourth estate should take this very seriously and see that these CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY GO TO THE WORLD COURT. By their relentless pursuit of evil (that masquerades as CHRISTIANANITY) in the press. This should be a priority beyond the polemics of the day!
Read the OT and see what the stiff necked, arrogant people of Israel got from their God. He loved them enough to discipline them but then HE also parted the Red Sea for them and gave them Manna in the desert.HIS miracles were unending for those HE loves and who obey HIS commands..
This is nothing to fool around with.....Be fearful of the LIVING GOD, IF YOU'RE NOT IN HIS WILL!
ANY NORMAL ADULT WHO HAS A BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRISTIANITY (or Judaisim), KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT TO DO, IF HE OR SHE FINDS OUT THIS IS HAPPENING. YOU MAKE SURE IT STOPS AND IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. GUESS HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT?
WITH ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS,1,2,3,4,5,6,7, HOW COULD YOU OR ANYONE NOT KNOW WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING? IT IS SO SIMPLE. BUT THEN, IT IS BEYOND THE CUNNING, MANIPULATING, GREED GRABBING, INTELLECTUAL, HYPOCRITS, THAT HAVE MADE THIS THEIR LIFE'S WORK.TO CON THE PEOPLE! HOW ABSOLUTELY LOVELY. AND THE PEOPLE HAVE BOUGHT IT, HOOK LINE AND SINKER! AGAIN I SAY TO ALL, "BE FEARFUL OF THE LIVING GOD!"
Both Weigel and Allen are
Both Weigel and Allen are right on. Their anlysis of this enormously complex issue is brilliant. Thanks to both.
The last line says it all:
The last line says it all: "The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world".
It may not want a perpetual war but I also suspect it so does not want to "translat(e) its internal culture" - it wants and needs to maintain its control and power and what better way to do this than to remain an aloof and elitist institution by having a language and processes of its own which, the lay person/outsider, cannot ever fully understand or be party to. It's the same mentality of street gangs and other sub-groups within any culture only on a massive and century's accepted scale.
The other line I believe is spot on is,
"Outsiders sometimes conclude, Weigel said, that "there is a will to deceive at the highest levels" of the Vatican. In reality, he said, much of what looks like deception is actually bungling — bred by naiveté, misinformation, or just plain being in over one's head."
I suspect this is true and that the level of many a Catholic professional is somehow never as high on average and somehow, arrogance plays a role in this - arrogance which says I don't have to try as hard because I am a good Catholic who belongs to an institution which has done the public acceptance/admiration-grab for me. Well, not anymore.
Meanwhile CSA sufferers (I am one) need to cope amidst all this.
Jesus is truth. The church
Jesus is truth. The church needs to learn to live the truth. The sorry story that the Vatican has its own culture which is different and needs to be considered is laughable in today's world. This is Allen and Weigel's form of cover-up to protect the church. The cardinals and archbishops in Rome are some pretty smart guys and I grant they are inept in many ways. But it is time for the laity to stop accepting that. The people need to have a voice in the running of their church. The Church needs to enter the modern era and to clean up its sad behavior in this and many other issues. Right now thousands of churches and schools are being closed all around the USA -- one at a time. The priest shortange is one reason and the other is that the people are voting with their feet and walking away. Sex abuse won't go away until marriage is returned as an option for priests. Celibacy is a big, big problem but the Vatican will not face it. Christ called married priests and it was a tradiation in the church for twelve centuries. The church had no right to change what Christ had approved. The church sins when it requires celibacy -- a job requirement -- because it is against nature.
Outstanding summary. Thank
Outstanding summary. Thank you very much!
You end the article with
You end the article with this: "The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world".
Yes, that is one point. But another available approach is to modify the structure, so that it is more in tune with the 21st Century. The Pope and Curia seem to have a need to ask: "What price are we paying for our secrecy, for our centralised authority, for at least appearing to have absolute authority and control?" If that's the way you want to play it, then you have seen how it will be interpreted not only by the news media but by the people of God who have no other experience of this kind of government in their lives except in those governments we condemn. Is that the price you are willing to pay?
A long article of excuses.
A long article of excuses. Yes, it is trying to explain background but not one word about the second and just as heinious part of the Sex Scandal: the cover-up.
If any organization tried to pull what the RCC has pulled, they would be disbanded. Yet Rome still wants to tough it out and really hope everyone forgets over time its embrace of falsehoods, lies and misdirections to save its own skin.
The paragon of Truth shot itself in the head. May the Fourth Estate keep digging because, at least, in this case they are more worthy of our trust than Rome and its co-conspirators.
It's also worthy to recognize that Rome has yet to repsond to this crisis in a Sacremental manner. It's response has been obfuscation and legal toughness beyond what some corporations would feel comfortable doing.
"data suggests the incidence
"data suggests the incidence of abuse among Catholic priests is no higher than among comparable professional groups such as public school teachers — even though sex abuse in other environments doesn't draw anything like the same saturation coverage."
_____________________________
In other words, men of God who preach love and all things good and who enjoy claiming inordinate power over the faithful's souls are NO BETTER than other professionals who sexually abuse children. It seems to me that the incidence of sexual abuse among among Catholic priests should be close to... ZERO. This is why it draws the coverage it does.
JOHN ALLEN explains
JOHN ALLEN explains Vatican-think as if it is the "right" way for things to be thought about.
Take the example:
"I explained that in the culture of the Vatican, the way they typically signal disapproval of a statement from someone at Sodano's level isn't by overtly repudiating it, but rather by not repeating it. Insiders know that silence speaks volumes, although the outside world usually concludes that the guy got away scot free."
Does this type of correctiveness work any place else in the world except among royals?
Excuses, excuses, never
Excuses, excuses, never ending excuses for how the Vatican handles the ongoing priest sex abuse crisis.
All we know for sure is that if it weren't for the news media and the plaintiff lawyers digging and reporting, we would not know a d..n thing about how the Vatican and all its directly appointed bishops have mishandled the priest abuse.
Weigel and Allen didn't reveal any thing.
John: You write:"How is it
John: You write:"How is it that Pope Benedict XVI, whom insiders regard as the great reformer on the sex abuse issue, somehow became the global symbol of the problem?" It is because, unfairly, many people have had trouble with Benedict from the start. He doesn't have the showmanship of JPII; he's a German intellectual; he's a German professor, etc."
Remember, too, that the Goodstein story said that the Pope had ignored letters from Milwaukee over Father Murphy. I never bought the NYT story and I actually read the documents. All the story ever proved was that Benedict did not answer his own mail. There was interference from the Vatican but the Vatican never shut the case down, which they could have done. The case ended when Fr. Murphy died. But what sticks with people is not the truth but the first headline; many people want to believe the worst about the Church and then they're "not surprised" when Benedict is "implicated". That story was not the NYT's finest moment.
The abuse crisis was worthy of almost all the coverage it got because a Holy institution failed to do right by the people God wants protected -- the people in the pews.
One last thing: George Weigel should try working in a newsroom. His analysis is great but has nothing to do with the speed at which news goes out.
Once again a refreshing take
Once again a refreshing take on the tumultous relationship between the Vatican and the press. John you are a god send. The communications department at the Vatican is the one that is in real need of reform. But like you say "ask the Vatican a question on Wednesday and they'll get back to you in 300 years". I love that saying.
Blessings
MM
Both John Paul and Benedict
Both John Paul and Benedict XVI, Weigel said, have inspired a new generation committed to a "heroic ideal of the priesthood," which, he said, suggests there will be few incidents of abuse down the line.
--------------------------------------------------------
If this new generation of priests is anything like the John Paul and Benedict new generation of bishops, we are in for lots of trouble.
========================================================
The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world.
--------------------------------------------------------
John Allen, no journalist writing in English knows the internal culture of the Vatican better than you. And the more I learn from you, the more repulsive that culture seems.
Alternatively it needs to
Alternatively it needs to change its culture -- which might work better and also bring it closer to the Gospel.
As usual, George Weigel
As usual, George Weigel hasn't just missed the boat, he has missed the ocean. Weigel repeats the old canard that pedophilia exists in other professions as much as it does in the priesthood. He has no evidence to support this tired claim. Worse still, he misses the much more important point that other professions, such as public school teachers, do not go to the lengths to cover up the crimes of their own members as the priesthood does. Furthermore, he says that since most pedophilia happens in families, celibacy isn't the problem. Celibacy doesn't cause pedophilia, but it has resulted in a clerical culture too removed from the knowledge and concerns of parents where pedophilia has thrived.
Weigel blames the press and says many church leaders were simply naive or misinformed. Yeah right. If church leaders were naive or misinformed, how come they always resist making documents public?
"Both John Paul and Benedict XVI, Weigel said, have inspired a new generation committed to a "heroic ideal of the priesthood," which, he said, suggests there will be few incidents of abuse down the line."
If there are fewer incidents down the line it is because the press has made sure the priesthood is no longer a safe haven for pedophiles. It isn't because the priests ordained over the last thirty years are supermen.
During his decline, Weigel repeatedly chastised anyone who dared suggest John Paul II step down. Now, Weigel says the problem was that during the years of Pope John Paul II's decline no one was in charge.
"Weigel said that many "serious Catholics," including regular church-goers and big-time donors, have deep reservations these days about the competence of some local bishops."
Anyone who doesn't have serious reservations about the competency of some bishops should have their heads examined. Weigel's reference to "big-time donors" tells us what crowd he represents. As a shameless shill for the Bush-Cheney Administration, Weigel did everything he could to turn the Catholic Church into an auxiliary for the Republican Party.
Thank you cashelguy. I'm
Thank you cashelguy.
I'm trying to figure out why Weigel is all of a sudden a card carrying journalist rather than a partisan editorialist. I also couldn't help notice John fails to mention all those documents coming from those attorney's who actually get paid to represent their abused clients, are official Vatican and diocesan documents. These are the exact same documents all the well paid attorney's representing the Church are supposed to keep from being exposed. Jeff Anderson would most likely be paraded as the next Thomas More if he worked for the Church.
The facts are Benedict did not act until the scope of the abuse crisis blew off the blind fold of his own clerical culturism. By then he was far too implicated himself.
Please take a look at
Please take a look at http://www.lifesitenews.com/?/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-t...
If you could not decipher it from the link, a study conducted for the US Department of Education by Carol Shakeshaft in 2004 found that, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
Should you be interested in the study itself, it is available at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
You might also want to consult this Newsweek article from April of 2010, in which studies are cited that would support the claim that sexual abuse is not any more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in any other denomination or profession: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
Further, there is evidence to support the fact that public schools, and the media, and the US Dept of Education have all, in one form or another, covered up for teachers and staff members who sexually abuse children. CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml), the Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/02/schools_cut_secret_d...), and National Catholic Register (http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/7970) have all noted this trend.
In addition, the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2004 that from 1993 - 2004, among the 1000 Protestant churches surveyed, there were an average of 70 abuse cases per week reported -- that's a total of more than 35,000 reported cases of abuse from the Protestant communities alone over that 10 year period (with a decrease beginning in 1997). (Please see http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html)
Why would Dr. Weigel not offer such evidence in his comments? Probably because he felt that his audience was either aware of these facts already, or able to research it themselves (it took me less than 10 minutes to find these few sources, the result of 3 Google searches).
I would highly recommend that you revisit your earlier comments regarding the "old canard" which is also, evidently, true. From your final comments, it seems evident that your real problem is less with Dr. Weigel's statements and his failure in your opinion to provide evidence for them, and more with his political positions. If that is the case, it is unfortunate that you allow those issues to blind you to the truth.
There are so many fallacies
There are so many fallacies in your argument it is hard to know where to start to reply to your post, but I will try.
The very sources you cite say there is no comparable study to the John Jay Study. Even the John Jay Study, flawed as it is, showed that over a generation 4% of priests were abusers and in some dioceses it was high as 8%.
You cite opinion pieces from The National Catholic Register and the National Review as "evidence." For starters, the National Catholic Register is run by the Legionaries of Christ, an order founded by the most notorious pedophile in Catholic Church history, Fr. Maciel. The Legion has used The Register as an organ to slander the critics and accusers of "Our Father," their supposedly saintly founder. Recently, even the Vatican, which ignored his crimes for decades, has found that Fr. Maciel was a sexual predator of the worst kind. He abused his own seminarians as well as his own sons by two secret "wives." Citing the National Catholic Register and the National Review as unbiased reporters is like calling FOX News "fair and balanced."
Much more importantly, you make the exact same mistake Weigel does. I do not doubt that sexual abuse of minors exists in public schools, the Boy Scouts and other professions. The difference is, and this is what you, Weigel and others seem incapable of understanding. is that these other institutions do not transfer its predators all over the country and the globe to escape detection and reoffend. These other institutions do not claim to represent Christ on Earth, which the last time I checked the Catechism, the Catholic priesthood does. The other professions also do not threaten victims with eternal damnation for reporting the truth as Bernard Law and his henchmen did in Boston. As a cradle Catholic, I would hope that the Catholic priesthood would hold itself to a higher standard than other professions. Since it doesn't, I am very, very glad the press does.
So, what is your point? That
So, what is your point? That there is more abuse elsewhere, so let's not get all uptight about Catholic clergy abuse? I remember when the early 2004 Monitor article came out and Catholic apologists were saying at that time it was only a couple hundred priests and the damage claims were less than $300 million.
The Catholic Church now, under pressure, has revealed several thousands of priests/child victims and more than $2 billion in damage claims in the U.S. alone. We are just learning about the rest of the world!
God only knows about the past centuries.
Catholic apologists need to shut up and get about major reforms in their church. There is still no system of non-clergy oversight of clergy formation, ordination and assignment. The foxes are watching the foxes. Most of these new conservative bishops are even back to greater secrecy than ever before.
Right On!!
Right On!!
Amen.
Amen.
This former Catholic is long
This former Catholic is long gone but continues to follow the intrigue. If the RCC wishes to regain creditibility, they need to start practicing what they preach and quit exempting the heirarchy from the rules given to the common followers of the church. They continue to cover up for the heirarchy.
If this is the best John
If this is the best John Allen can offer on this topic, he has lost a lot of his credibility as a columnist. This is simply a rehash of the garbage we have been fed by curial officials for the last couple of years. He attacks one critic as being Jewish and therefore biased (I think that's what he meant) and not doing enough research. However he forgets the report of the Massachussets A.G.'s office on Boston and he either ignores or is ignorant of the several governmental reports and volumns of evidence from various commissions investigating Irish dioceses and Rome's refusal to cooperate with their requests for relevant information; also Rome's later refusal to accept resignations proferred by bishops involved in cover ups.
The excuse that "that's not how Rome acts" is pretty poor. That's how they should act.
Bill Keane
I appreciate your continued
I appreciate your continued covereage and "translation" of what's going on in the Catholic Church and look forward to reading your pieces just so I can have a more critical eye toward my morning New York Times. Regarding this article, I can review with a fairly open mind the 7 points that lead the media to report inaccurately (I often catch gaffes myself as I read, some of which are appalling) and though I could burn through some serious text quibbling with aspects of them, I'm sure many have so I won't.
My real question is this: What do we make of the reality that most Catholics "know" -- that when abusive priests were covered for and re-assigned, they were often put in the position of authority/access to many, many children with full trust associated with their collar (this is obviously less true today), and that there is something unique to Catholicism's modus operandi that DOES make this different in quality from a Baptist music minister fired from his church (who may somehow be able to obfuscate his background in another location and get re-hired but not at the BEHEST of his denomination) or from a high school teacher found to be abusing students (I have never heard of a widespread, national practice of school districts that routinely pay off or silence parents and then reassign abusers to schools across the county or state).
One can certainly argue (and I have used this arguement to defend Catholicism myself) that we have access to Catholic percentages of abuse while lacking other sects' simply because Catholics keep good records and not because, sadly, others don't have similar abuse, and that our centralization makes it easier to target us. But I -- and presumably many others - question whether our centralization and clerical culture aren't just aspects that make Catholics disproportionately in the spotlight, but whether they actually DO make Catholic priestly abuse somehow more insidious than other abuse. That nagging suspicion, coupled with a hierarchy that goes to great lengths to claim particular moral authority for itself and the clergy and then seems to also make assertions along the lines of, "We aren't worse than others at abusing innocent children, dammit, and any circling of the wagons done was done for your good and not our own!" ring terrifically hollow. And I am not getting that message just from the liberal media, but in at least one instance directly from the mouth of our own good Cardinal at a program I attended in person, as well as from multiple priests in person.
With that being said, most priests I know are horrified by the abuse in the Church as much as I am, are serving faithfully, and I do not assume that most priests are abusive (as a priest friend of mine claimed everyone must given the continued bad press). But I still say that most of us "know" from stories and our own experiences that a single priest can continue to perpetrate apparently Church-sponsored abuse at terrific levels that seem worse than elsewhere. As a kid in the 70s I recall my mother railing against the bishops of Detoit for reassigning pedophile priests to the UP without any warning to the rural congregants. And I regret that I can think of at least 1 priest assigned to my parish during my 8 years of grade school who I later found out abused several of my male schoolmates (who I vaguely recall thinking were really messed up kids whose behaviors now make sense) before parents got him ousted, who then blithley went on to work in the Diocese without apparent repercussions for as long as I can recall hearing about him.
The fact that I am married to someone who suffered childhood sexual abuse (at age 7, so none of the "it's not really 'pedophelia'/it's not so bad if they are adolescents" nonsense which I find reprehensible comes into play) certainly colors my response to the Church's response as well as my own Catholic experience. It's painful to try and explain the Church's handling, denial, general lack of compassion and understanding of the situation, whether up close and personal in our own diocese or featured in the media. As a Catholic with some understanding of Church history, I do have faith that reform will come and we'll look back at the rate of change with some perspective, blah blah blah. But let me tell you, in real time it is painful and painfully slow. And bishops appear to be clueless and naive about the pain and legacy of abuse.
Some of the fuzzy facts of the media, clearly awry about things like papal power and broad understanding of abuse within society at large, may still get at some very real truths that I feel our Church in general turns a blind eye toward. I wish those with power - not absolute power, but the power to influence a clerical culture - would not reject the truth in those articles while busily pulling apart their accuracy in some areas. Thank you.
First, Weigel tries to
First, Weigel tries to convince us that the pope has limited power, then later admits that no one was in charge “while the king was dying” — or at least no one of record and accountability. A "king" with no power, eh? Basically, what Vatican apologists have done is to restate the obvious — the Roman Catholic system of governance is hopelessly obsolete and broken. The shameless abuse of children via clericalism is not “new” but rather, it goes back centuries… for starters, read up on the Vatican created market for the castrati over a four hundred year period. Even Church fathers documented the sexual acting out of clerics in centuries past, though as today, they choose to place blame everywhere except where it belongs.
.
Further, it is not just “an impression” that there are no serious consequences for abysmal behavior and negligence by these “princes of the Church” — it’s a fact. The royal elites of the Church hang together in their exclusive boys' club so that they don’t hang separately for their crimes and malfeasance — Benedict continues to coddle guilty bishops. Even the members of the USCCB voted to exclude themselves from the zero tolerance provisions and intrusive investigations of their own 2002 Charter. The Maciel debacle and Curial palm-greasing shows just how deeply the cancerous corruption is entrenched. It’s not that they can’t clean up their act, it’s that they won’t.
.
Mr. Allen’s ending conclusion: “The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world.” Perhaps a better conclusion is that the Vatican internal culture of exceptionalism and royal privilege is what needs to change. Benedict has made it clear that won't happen — elite prelates won't stand for it. The pope and his bishops much prefer their ongoing attempts to flip their guilt onto laity and victims.
.
In the meantime fellas, don’t attempt to “teach” laity about sexual morality, or any kind of morality. It’s pretty clear that we have a better handle on that topic than those wearing Roman collars who prance about in lace and silk… and who can’t keep their own pants on or their own house in order. There's not enough cappa magna silk on the planet to cover up your filthy mess or enough slippery verbiage to explain it away.
.
"To present Melloni as an
"To present Melloni as an objective source, Weigel argued, is a distortion."
Obviously, Weigel himself is not an objective source. It was very tiresome to witness his bend-over-backward acrobatics to defend the popes.
I've been following the sexual abuse scandal since 1994 when it erupted in New Mexico and no spinning or justifying rationales are going is to get the Vatican off the hook in my opinion.
Ratzinger's anti-relativism obsession is causing an enormous divide in the West. He might have been a good pope in medieval times, but not now.
None of what is written here
None of what is written here in an attempt of explaining how the Vatican communicates or functions or the assumptions that people make about the sexual abuse crisis changes the fundamental way I feel. As a mental health worker I know the statistics of sexual abuse in the general population, but as a Catholic I maintain that the sexual abuse by a priest, who most kids understand is a representative of God/Jesus, is a more insidious form of abuse. It remains one of the more heinous forms of abusing children. The institutional church is hierarchical, patriarchal and bureaucratic and so I don't expect that it will work all that efficiently as it relates to most church problems. However, the sexual abuse of children and the cover-up is in a category all by itself. It is not one of many issues that the Vatican encounters in running the church. Sexual abuse of children by priests has disturbed many if not most Catholics around the world. That very few priests or bishops cared about these children and worried more about bringing scandal to the church is the essence of what I, and probably many Catholics find a huge problem. Nothing that Mr. Allen's article attempts to explain in his very long and informative article, changes the basic tragedy of the sexual abuse of children.
What to think of a post
What to think of a post titled: “The press and the sex abuse crisis of 2010,” when “the press” and “sex abuse crisis” seem to fade into the background? Allen's actual text sashays away from the headline. The explanation may lie in the reporter's comment: “We spent a fair bit of time in Miami doing some basic exercises in Vaticanology.”
Round out some of the stats and you’ll get a glimpse of the actual subject of the 2900-word post. For example, 40% (1166 words)of the text is devoted to George Weigel’s critique of the press's “seven flawed assumptions." Thirty-four percent (972 words) is allotted to Allen’s diligent reconstruction of the papal chronology in responding to the child-molestation crisis.
Together then, the views of these two men take up 74% of the print real-estate. The remaining platform space leaves the 20 press persons a share 38 words each. Of the 122 or so sentences in the piece, Mr. Weigel garners 37% and Mr. Allen, 33%.
Perhaps Allen did not write his own headline which might more realistically have read: “Weigel’s critique of the press’s mistaken assumptions and Allen’s analysis of the Pope’s crisis response.” Allen’s closing characterization, the “take-away,” as he phrases it, was that the Vatican had to start "translating its internal culture” for the outside world. A disquieting conclusion. True, the Vatican is culpable if the "outside" world has to master Vaticanology as a Second Language (unless it employs a translator!) but to title this column “press and sex abuse” is disappointingly misleading.
Can someone smarter than I
Can someone smarter than I explain how/why the following statements of George Weigel are or are not beside the point:
1) Weigel also criticized attempts to link the crisis to priestly celibacy, asserting that 50 to 60 percent of the sexual abuse of children occurs in the family — and is therefore committed by people who have never taken vows of celibacy.
2) Assumption Five: Sex abuse is "a distinctively Catholic problem, and an institutional Catholic problem."
That may be true of Ireland, Weigel said, but it's not in the United States, where data suggests the incidence of abuse among Catholic priests is no higher than among comparable professional groups such as public school teachers — even though sex abuse in other environments doesn't draw anything like the same saturation coverage.
This is a very interesting
This is a very interesting article. I had not expected to see such common sense expressed by George Weigel. What he seemed to say is that the Vatican and church officials screwed up but it was actually understandable.Since journalists are journalists and not necessarily scholars, it is not to be unexpected that they might interpret facts differently from the way church officials, whose expressions and actions are confusing, might wish to see them interpreted. It has been unfortunate that some church representative seize upon the situation to claim that the church is being persecuted by the journalists.
Dear John. Thanks you for
Dear John.
Thanks you for misrepresenting our pope's message to the press.
Sarcastically
Daniel
William Levada had an amazing
William Levada had an amazing record as bishop and archbishop in his handling of clerical abuse. How could Ratzinger not have known this when he appointed him to head the sacred congregation? A poacher turned game keeper? As with Sodano,the guy got away scot free.I cannot understand why the press are so lenient with him. I am convinced the scandal is not so much the sexual abuse as the abuse of power. Sexual abuse of the vulnerable needed to be rooted out and the perpetrators rendered harmless. Tom Doyle raised the alarm a decade ago, and the knee jerk reaction was to have him silenced.
If the church authorities
If the church authorities were so incompetent, then why did so few priests report the molestation of children to law enforcement? Even if Rome had given the command to be silent, one would think just ONE incompetent cleric and/or bishop out of the sheer inability to understand commands the Vatican gave, unawareness of a Vatican command to be silent, and/or too incompetent to carryout a Vatican order of absolute silence regarding child molesting by other clerics would have by accident reported a crime that cleric became aware of to the police. So incompetency doesn't explain the thundering world-wide silence by all persons in religious authority and fellow priests to report to law enforcement crimes that they had witnessed. Incompetency would have explained why some priests reported the rape of children and other priests collaberated with the perpretrators and remained silence. That isn't what happened. Incredibly, almost 100% of Roman Catholic Priest world wide chose to be be 100% silent about their fellow priests who abused children, minors, and vulnerable adults. That seems like a very corrupt system in which fear of removal from the clerical state and threat of eternal damnation trumped saving children from sexual abuse. And why not? How many priests week after week sitting in the confessional didn't learn of children being abused in thier homes through incest, or women who were raped, or males who engaged in sex with other males and kept silent.
Another helpful analysis by
Another helpful analysis by John Allen.
There is one factor which is muddied that of accountability. Of all institutions the church which claims to represent God on earth is seriously deficient in transparancy when dealing with what can only be described as evil. Until this is clearly seen in all church matters the distrust of the papacy and the church will continue.
Assumption 8: That the Pope's
Assumption 8: That the Pope's biographer or the English-speaking journalist with arguably more access to the Vatican insiders to preserve than any other could be regarded as anything like objective!
It seems to me that the critics of the press's coverage most often seek to remove a speck from the eyes of the press.
This journalist said it best:
Another reporter made the point that when it comes to the crisis, media outlets have a limited appetite for nuance, because of the stark moral nature of the underlying issue — the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children. In that regard, this reporter said, the media can be as "unchanging and relentless as the church."
The take-away seemed to be that unless the Vatican wants a perpetual war with the press, it needs to become more adept at translating its internal culture for the outside world.
This is the real problem--- that the Church refuses to believe that the moral imperative being violated is larger and more Eternal than itself, or its "internal culture."
Journalists who are themselves Vatican Insiders, while they get the details right, are themselves prone to beginning to believe that the sort of warped morality that would leave a serial sexual predator in contact with his victim pool is 'normal.'
What is more 'normal,' I would contend, is the moral outrage that leads secular media to sometimes do things that appear to portend bias.
But is it 'bias' to be outraged at institutional failure to protect children from predators within it? Who is more 'anti-Catholic?' The media which rails against the Church's shortcomings in this area or the very clerics who allow Catholic children to be preyed upon?
Perhaps we need to review or definition of "anti-Catholic."
"Both John Paul and Benedict
"Both John Paul and Benedict XVI have inspired a new generation committed to a 'heroic ideal of the priesthood,' which, [George Weigle] said, suggests there will be few incidents of abuse down the line."
What utter ideological nonsense! If we rely solely on a culture of (self-proclaimed) virtue we have learned nothing from the past. Get real!
What will assure few incidents of abuse in the future is strict enforcement of a set of behavioral standards (such as those adopted by the male religious in the USA) that practically and severely limit the opportunities of priests (or any other adults)to groom and/or abuse minors.
Can we not dedicate at least as much attention to the efforts to prevent future abuse as to the "shaming and blaming" over past abuse?
As someone who has recently
As someone who has recently written a book about my experience as a Legionary of Christ, with Fr. Maciel, and having had some experience of the "Vatican mind-set" I have to say that I found your article helpful, enlightening and balanced. Thank you for your report. The Vatican surely has a lot of catching up to do. In the case of Maciel and the Legion they got off to a slow start - but the slow wheels are clearly in motion and I hope the Church will be the better for these awful experiences.
Mr. Allen, you say: "The
Mr. Allen, you say: "The conversation in Miami didn't produce an artificial consensus — and it wasn't designed to — but it did have a lot to say about where things stand vis-à-vis the church and the fourth estate."
If I understand correctly you, and the reporters, are paid to write articles for various media outlets where the subject is the Vatican or some aspect thereof. How did you and the other reporters factor out your own bias? That is, as one of the assumptions was “reliable sources,” what makes you a reliable reporter? How is a reader to know you are not just a low-level munchkin happily writing in exchange for a periodic paycheck?
Actually, there is
Actually, there is considerable evidence that school teachers offend at the same, or a higher, rate than Catholic priests (so do protestant ministers) and that public schools shuffle teachers around in precisely the same manner as bishops.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
http://coe.ksu.edu/ucea/2006/FauskeUCEA2006.pdf
And while the statistics are out of date, it's always worth reading (and re-reading) Phillip Jenkins Pedophiles and Priests.
@Cashelguy2 I agree
@Cashelguy2
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I would also add that if, as even Weigel now admits, diocesan bishops in the US are of a mediocre quality—and several observers would agree, as e.g. Richard McBrian, who has reiterated many times his very negative judgment on the state of the current episcopal body as “one of the worst in recent times”—should not the cause be sought in the current procedure of top-down, universal papal appointments? In 1848, Blessed Antonio Rosmini went as far as calling “universal [papal] reservations” the work of the devil, who would use them as a “subtle means for disturbing the peace and prosperity of the Church” by taking away what he regarded as an inalienable responsibility of the local church (The Five Wounds of the Church, nos. 105–08; also no. 82, available at http://www.rosmini-in-english.org/FiveWounds/FW_Ch04_3.htm). Weigel now even admits that Ratzinger might not be very good at choosing bishops. But John Paul II was not much better.
(BTW, Rosmini suggested in some details, as the solution, to let the local church decide. That would entail, first, a period of public information-exchanges and debates with regard to possible episcopal candidates. Public discussion by itself increases knowledge and curbs biased opinions. Subsequently, as Rosmini suggested, one might envisage 8 days of voting (from one Sunday to the next included) where all Catholics who want to can write down both their preference(s) and their contrariety in a register which would be opened in each parish for the purpose. The whole process should not take more than two to three months, much less than what currently required to get a new bishop from the pope).
It seems to me that a key
It seems to me that a key component is missing, at least from Mr. Allen's article. The focus here seems to be on the (impliedly benign) ineptness of the Vatican, and the Vatican's culture. But even if everything that he and Mr. Weigel said were true, that doesn't resolve the really important issue here.
A Vatican culture based on nuances that are best understood from the context of an insider to a monarchy, will do precious little to help the world, and Catholics, understand what's going on. So while someone "on the inside" might understand that silence may be seen as a rebuke, to much of the rest of the world, such silence is seen as assent. And thus a really powerful message is sent.
The question becomes this: is it the duty of the world to understand the nuances of Vatican politics and culture, or is it the duty of the Vatican to find a way to connect to the world, in terms the world and its cultures can understand? Thus far, JPII, and now Benedict have acted as if it is the duty of the world to figure out how to understand the Vatican's culture. In the meantime, the church is bleeding, and bleeding badly.
Central to all of this is the question of accountability. Those with access to Vatican insiders may understand better than the rest of us, that the stories have more nuance. But to be honest, for the vast majority of us, it sure appears that there is no accountability once one reaches the episcopacy. Whether accurate or not, this perception is corrosive to the moral authority of the church. This is neither a trivial matter, nor one that can be easily brushed off, because it places the church's teachings on accountability and justice, front and center. Again, the PERCEPTION is that there now exists a double standard in the church.
If I need to learn Vatican-speak, and do a great deal of historical study to understand that this perception is not true, the church's leadership is in trouble. And even if I do it personally, most will not.
THIS then becomes a big challenge to the Church's leadership. I think this challenge will be crucial to their ongoing ability to get anybody to be willing to even listen in the future.
Welfare of children -- If
Welfare of children -- If we're really concerned about the welfare of children then some readers here would do well to 1) stop quibbling about whether or not these are Catholic excuses, 2) recognize the Catholic response, though delayed, has been vastly improved, 3) open wide the doors of this conversation to the even darker reality of sexual abuse in public schools.
Dr. Carol Shakeshaft is an excellent resource to start. (see posts above)
EXACTLY! Are you really upset
EXACTLY! Are you really upset about the welfare of abused minors? Or merely jumping onto the anti-catholic wave?
The hard and true facts are
The hard and true facts are that Pope Benedict XVI is facing the same palace revolution that John Paul II (The Great) faced, (and possibly made him sicker than he already was).
Know you Archbishop Dolan that there are millions of us out here who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in your fight to salvage the Church in NY and in our nation. Just make the call.
We do not need Cathilic lite. Teach forcefully. Souls are at stake. Many souls. Souls that are in your chosen hand. Let Him in!!!
Lead us.
Andrew Piacente aka Doria2 Yonkers, NY
The real problem is that for
The real problem is that for the past 40 years there has flourished in the U.S. Church a culture of insubordination not only towards the worldwide one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church as it exists here and now, but towards 2,000 years of tradition and precedent going back to Christ and the Apostles. And that culture exists here precisely because within the Holy See there has been a culture of gutlessness in dealing with insubordinate bishops, theologians, seminaries, etc. The result is that since the death of Pius XII, the Papacy has lost all effective administrative control over the U.S. Church. Rogue actors know that consequences, if any at all, are very long in coming in response to rebellious behavior. The Holy See usually deals with disobedient bishops by waiting for them to retire or die of old age, and then replacing them with someone presumably better. If a rogue bishop is totally over the cliff in his defiance of the larger Church, then he may be gently eased out of office after 10 or 15 years or more of wreaking havoc. As a bishop can flout the Holy See, so a theologian or priest (Father Jenkins at Notre Dame)can thumb his nose at the American bishops and pretty much get away with it. That's the real story, but I doubt that the New York Times will want to expose it, because they tend to be sympathetic towards the dissenters and antipathetic towards a Papacy that might assert firmer control. And one more thing: before you can explain to the world why our CEO is unwilling to curb the epidemic of rogue behavior throughout the company, you're going to have to explain it to me in a way that doesn't get my blood boiling whenever I think of it.
It is precisely this type of
It is precisely this type of dialogue- between a Vatican historian and prelates- that only increases the laity's distrust of the Church hierarchy. Like my local pastor once said from the pulpit - "there would be no scandal except for the media."
It is long past time that the Church took some responsibility for the scandal, the cover-up, and the on-going spin of the facts. To say, as was mentioned in the article. that, in effect, the Church is not responsible because those in positions from local parish priest to the Pope were merely incompetent, is so preposterous that it insults everyone.
Each time I got to Mass I wonder why I'm still there. Articles like this go along way to keeping from Mass.
The Catholic Church and its leaders need to wake-up, act like adults and, for once in many years, consider the laity.
As of now you are only trying to cover your behinds and doing a lousy job of that.
The media (even the NY Times) is not responsible for the Church's problems - you are!
Bill Crew: "Each time I got
Bill Crew: "Each time I got to Mass I wonder why I'm still there."
At least you're still wondering. That's a good sign. As far as there being scandal in the Church, you should google a biography of Pope Alexander VI who reigned around the turn of the 16th Century. Stories of his gross immorality will curl your hair. When he died, his successor Pius III reportedly refused to celebrate a mass for him, saying, "it is blasphemous to pray for the damned." We've had a lot of rotten people in the Church, and probably even more well-meaning screwups. It's been involved in some of history's most exquisite stupidities. You really wonder how an outfit like this could have produced some of the world's finest people: a St. Francis, a Mother Theresa, a Mother Cabrini, etc. You wonder how the Catholic Church could have become in 2010 what is probably the world's oldest continually-functioning corporate entity. I can't think of any other of today's human organizations which opened its doors 2000 years ago and is still in business.
And maybe we need to wonder how this outfit ever could have gotten started when its founder was assassinated as a common criminal only three years after he'd begun his efforts. The Gospels tell us that at that point, the movement was in danger of falling apart, when the founder's body suddenly disappeared from the tomb on the third day after his death and his followers began insisting they had seen him alive again. Two thousand years later, his body is still missing and despite the considerable efforts of those both inside and outside the Church, nobody has succeeded in destroying the enterprise.
I think the key is found in the words of Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ. The Acts of the Apostles (5:36-40)quote him as urging his fellow Sanhedrin members not to continue persecuting the Christians.
"Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God."
If I were you, Bill, I would meditate on Rabbi Gamaliel's words every time you begin to wonder why you are still going to mass. And if I were you, I would realize that the Church is far more than the sum total of the people inside it.
And if I were you, I would keep going to mass and the sacraments, and keep believing the teachings.
Post new comment