Weighing Weigel’s case against The Times
George Weigel’s column on the First Things blog summarizes the case being made in many quarters that The New York Times has been biased in its recent coverage of Pope Benedict’s handling of cases of clergy sexual abuse. He writes:
“… the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young, with hints of an ecclesiastical criminal conspiracy involving sexual predators whose predations continue today. That the vast majority of the abuse cases in the United States took place decades ago is of no consequence to this story line.”
I don’t agree with his analysis. The reason goes back to something I told the U.S. bishops when I was invited to address them at a closed session of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Pittsburgh in the late 1990s: that journalists aren’t especially interested in individual cases of sexual abuse, but are very interested in stories about cover-ups in powerful institutions. In other words, the best course for the bishops was to be truthful.
This is what has made clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church the subject of so many scathing reports, whether from the news media or grand juries: that a cover-up occurred at high levels in many dioceses. When a scandal of this proportion is uncovered, journalists will naturally want to see how far it goes – the basis for the latest round of stories. To say that sexual abuse in other churches or other sectors of society does not get the same media attention misses the point. The issue isn’t that Catholic priests are allegedly prone to commit sexual abuse, but that a small percentage of them were freed to do so, again and again, due to gross mismanagement, secrecy and lack of accountability on the part of church authorities. However dated most of the sexual abuse cases are, this story still calls out to be covered because some of those who failed to stop repeat abusers remain in positions of authority.
The Times coverage in recent days has explored this. Weigel’s column and much of the outcry over the paper’s coverage focuses on a March 25 story about a priest from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. There is some information late in the story – the timing of the priest’s death, especially – that should have been higher in the article, in my view. I would have preferred that the story let the documents speak more for themselves rather than declare in the second paragraph that the internal correspondence shows that church officials’ “highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.” That judgment should have been left to the reader.
It’s disconcerting to see a pope questioned in this way, but I think The Times has done a service to Catholics by bringing the documentation for this case to light. It opens a window on the process.
The problem with Weigel et al bemoaning the coverage of the crisis is that they propose no solution. They presume to know the motivation behind the media coverage and decry that supposed intent. They stop short of saying that the media should never cover stories that show the hierarchy in a poor light, but every report, no matter how objective, they see as a smear job.
I would be interested in how they propose to fix this supposed problem. Would their solution be to resort to a reverent stenography of Vatican statements without delving deeper, a la the National Catholic Register? But that would be what they accuse the same media of doing in regard to the Obama administration; that they do not investigate matters of birth certificates, secret census plots and death panels.
So what is it, Mr. Weigel? Do you want reverent stenography when it comes to massive international Church scandals and delving deeper when it comes to bizarre accusations made against anyone else? And what sort of coverage would you see as not motivated by anti-Catholicism?
An aspect of this that rarely gets mentioned is that we live in a profoundly anti-hierarchical culture. The idea of a bureaucracy like that of the Roman Catholic Church, with clear lines of authority going up to one person who gets huge deference, is all but unthinkable in the American culture. My parents’ generation was comfortable with this model — it was the way businesses worked. But when I was a lowly researcher in computer labs for two Fortune 100 companies and the CEOs came for a tour, they came without neckties and said, “Call me John” to everyone they met. The message they wanted to send was, “I’m no different from you.”
The model of authority the church uses, and especially the Vatican, makes most journalists think, “all that secrecy, all that power invested in a small group of people — they must be hiding something.” I think when Roman Catholics see anti-catholic bias in places like the NYTimes, a lot of what they’re seeing is really a result of this cultural shift.
If reporters and media outlets expect rot in the church, I don’t think it’s anti-Catholic bias so much as anti-hierarchy/bureaucracy/institution bias. And the church admits it’s a hierarchy with less apology than most institutions nowdays.
Paul writes:
“this story still calls out to be covered because some of those who failed to stop repeat abusers remain in positions of authority”
One may agree with this view and still legitimately wonder whether three consecutive days of coverage in the form of stories on the top left front page of the Times — with the story on the Milwaukee priest splayed out over four columns (if memory serves) — might indicate a further agenda to be at work.
I would be interested to know, from those versed in such matters, an estimate concerning how large is the Times’ team that has been marshaled to ferret out items from the Pope’s past, and what their budget is? And what their prize is? Perhaps I’ve been jaded by the academy’s “hermeneutics of suspicion.”
Is the NY Times worrying at a bone?
It sure is, but history shows that if your worry at that RCC abuse bone long enough, dirt will surface.
Without the press digging, George Weigel would still think that Maciel was a saint.
I have been reading the press accounts and the NYT in particular and I have not detected any “frenzy” a term that some have used. When someone finds that a story is being reported that he would rather not see reported, one is inclined to ask how true the story is. This is a legitimate question, but I am not aware that anyone has shown that the NYT is printing fiction as news. Then, when the facts prove difficult to refute, one is tempted to resort to an attack on the motives of the reporters and the newspaper for which they work. Attacks on motives, in such instances, are often the last resort of those who cannot accept inconvenient truths. We all have varied mixtures of motives. We are all sinners and I doubt that anyone’s motives are pure. Mixed motives, where they may fairly be assumed, do nothing to show that what is being reported is false or out of date or simply not newsworthy, How Joseph Ratzinger did his job as archbishop of Munich is a matter of interest, all the more so because he is now bishop of another rather important diocese.
Weigel writes, “For the narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today) than it is about taking the Church down—and, eventually, out, both financially and as a credible voice in the public debate over public policy. For if the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of sexual abusers and their protectors, then the Catholic Church has no claim to a place at the table of public moral argument.”
Well, there’s the conspiracy theory in a nutshell. Now all Weigel has to do offers some proof that such a conspiracy exists.
Certainly, the NYT–and any newspaper–can be taken to task for coverage gaffes. In hindsight, stories often turn out not to be as big–or sometimes bigger–than coverage warrants. Moreover, I don’t see the NYT covering abuses by other denominations–Benny Hinn could use some looking into, in my view–or the Hutaree nutbars just south of my house who got rounded up by the FBI yesterday.
But I think it behooves people to remember that Weigel imputes motives to people that often stretch credulity. Some years ago, he pointed to historic markers at the sites of Viking raids along the coast of Great Britain as proof that Scotland was “celebrating” its pagan past.
Thank God for George Weigel! Here is a man whose motives are pure! Take note all!
(Yes, I know irony is easily missed in the blogosphere!)
Jean,
Not long ago, the Times did a fairly major story on sex abuse among the Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn.
I don’t know that I would put it exactly this way myself, but someone said to me recently that the Catholic Church just was in negotiations with the US Congress trying to influence health care reform, and ultimately tried to kill it because the bill didn’t meet their moral standards. And now some are whining about the scrutiny the Church is getting in the press over the sex-abuse crisis. The Church has no hesitation dictating moral positions on gay rights and same-sex marriage, the use of condoms in fighting AIDS, and other issues that affect millions of people across the world. But when it doesn’t like the media coverage of its own moral standards, it whines, and the pope declares he will not be intimidated over petty gossip. Petty gossip!
David, yes, I believe I recall that story because it was linked to one of the earlier arguments about NYT coverage of sex abuse scandals on this blog.
FWIW: There are really two stories re the Church. One is about the frequency and scope of pedophilia–how often, how widespread; and the second is about the institutional response of the Church to abusive clerics (and Weigel admits that the Church has made mistakes in this latter area). Because the story has two angles, it has doubled the coverage.
Our former bishop was extremely proactive when the stories about sex abuse broke a decade ago. He sent a letter to every home in the diocese reiterating the abuse policy, gave people the number to law enforcement officials specializing in pedophilia, and held a news conference at which he welcomed questions from the local press.
I often use his example in class as a success story in crisis communication. Run toward the crisis and you shorten its lifespan. Run away, and it takes on a life of its own.
David Nichol: The Pope did not declare that he will not be intimidated by petty gossip.
David Nickol,
See Fr. K’s comments on translation on Fullam’s post below, or learn Italian!
My last was to David G. (cuz now we have two Davids on here).
David N., I think you make a good point. The fact that the Church has put itself in the limelight on political issues where they bear on moral teaching is another reason the story has received so much attention.
On the other hand, the Times may be ignoring stories that have equal or greater impact on more segments of our society. Compare the following cursory search of the NYT Web site:
NYT hits for “Texas board of education” in the past year, 193 hits
NYT hits for “Catholic Church” + “sex abuse” in the past year, 370 hits
There is nothing new about Weigel’s response to the Times. When Jason Berry, in 1992, first wrote about what turned out to be the “tip of an iceberg,” the official response was that this was no more than the secular media attacking the Church. Now, 18 years later, the choir is still singing the same hymn. Questioning the motives of the secular media does not succeed in diverting our attention. A larger, much larger, issue looms–and is being brought into the light of day: the way in which authority is exercised in the Church.
This past Sunday, in the Passion According to Luke, we heard Jesus say to his apostles: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them…but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.” (Lk 22:25-26) These words of Jesus are reflected in the language, but not the actual style of leadership in the Church.
The more the Church denies or downplays the moral failure of its response to sexual abuse by bishops (totally agree with the premise of the post), particularly by blaming secular institutions either for causing it or blowing it out of proportion, the more of a challenge it is to reporters to find and report the wrenching truth of what, actually, Cardinal Law and Ratzinger did in response to reports of abuse so that we can all decide for ourselves what we think. We bury incredibly ugly acts in that one term, “abuse,” and I sometimes wonder how much the euphemism and obfuscation used at varying levels led Church officials to make wrong decisions because they had unduly abstracted what had actually happened into that one word. One thing sexual abusers learn early is to build on the shame that many people feel about sexual acts to obain a victim’s silence. So we say things like coerced sexual contact instead of anal rape.
If you think the NYT is gunning for the Church, then think about the current governor of New York — he didn’t beat anybody up, he just tried to make the consequences go away for someone he liked who apparently did. He spends a lot of time fulminating about the NYT as well but it doesn’t seem to have resonated with the people of New York. And to their credit, his minions are not hanging on for dear life, but are resigning as they realize that they were being used to perpetuate lies and a cover up.
Another revolting euphemism: the constant use of the word “fondling” in stories about sexual abuse of children. Definition of fondle: “To handle, stroke, or caress lovingly”. The adults who use children for sexual gratification are not doing so lovingly, obviously.
Weigel says, “abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution”, as if no one was abused before whatever group or era he’s blaming. Did the “sexual revolution” pre-date the Magdalene laundries and industrial schools of Ireland? Did it occur before the Indian boarding schools of North America? Etc.
He says, “six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members”. Does that convince anyone of anything?
The Pope did not declare that he will not be intimidated by petty gossip.
Fr. Komonchak,
I accept your translation, and having read further coverage, it seems to me one would have to be able to read the pope’s mind to know if he intended even to hint that the chatter and dominant opinion were in regard to the sex abuse crisis. I don’t think the coverage I read was good or accurate reporting. I regret repeating the mistranslated and misinterpreted remark.
I was once in a very small union that went on strike, and it got some major attention (New York Times, Time Magazine) because it was a union in the book publishing industry, where unions are practically nonexistent. I was in the union leadership, so I knew exactly what was going on. The news coverage was not exactly accurate. There were factual errors, but nothing that merited a letter to the editor. I imagine this is true a lot of the time, and I don’t think even in this case it is necessarily due to bias.
But in any case, I think you are correct, and I think we did not get an accurate report from the vast majority of the press on this one. (If you google the story, many different news sources reported it as the pope saying he wouldn’t be intimidated by gossip.)
I have sent the following e-mail to the Public Editor (in other newspapers, ombudsman) of the New York Times:
There has been much comment on Catholic web sites, including America’s In All Things (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=2), Commonweal’s Dot Commonweal (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/), National Catholic Reporter’s NCR Today (http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today) and WHispers in the Loggia (http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/) about some of recent articles and columns about the scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these are so-called liberal sites. What more conservative web sites are saying is probably harsher.
I would like to see the Public Editor’s assessment of the controversy in the Week in Review. Next Sunday, however, is Easter, and it might be tactless to respond then. The following Sunday might be a better occasion.
Having read some of the documentation on the Times’ site yesterday, I found that the documents presented a more nuanced story than the paper published. So when thinking about this, be sure to read the documents.
And then, another reason this story keeps coming back, apart from all of the reasons cited above, is money.
The church has money; treatment centers don’t; priests don’t; and public institutions have legal protections to prevent suits especially from public school parents whose children have been abused. The church should apologize and compensate victims, no doubt about it.
Money affects everything at least in the U.S. Lawyers play a big part in keeping the story going. They get depositions that they release to the press; they frame questions that leave out some issues and highlight others. If I am not mistaken, the documents in the Times’s story last week came from Jeffrey Anderson, trial lawyer, and major player in abuses cases brought against arch/dioceses.
There is divided opinion on this blog, I know, about the role of lawyers and legislators. Even so, we should acknowledge there is a minor industry that keeps the story going. I will be interested to see how this plays out in Germany which has a different legal framework, one, which I believe, treats civil suits differently, if at all.
The Times today carried an advertisement on its op-ed page in which Bill Donohue castigates the paper, saying its coverage is a response to the church’s position on abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination. “That’s what’s really driving them mad, and that’s why they are on the hunt,” he writes. “Those who doubt this to be true need to ask why the debt-ridden Times does not spend the same resources looking for dirt in other institutions that occurred a half-century ago.”
As Ken Lovasik points out above, this kind of attack has been made every time the news media have investigated this issue. I don’t see how The Times can be faulted for putting several reporters on the story, prompted by the new developments in Ireland. With bishops resigning in Ireland and Cardinal Brady possibly on the brink of resigning, this is hardly the old news that Mr. Donohue would like it to be. I would expect the paper’s reporters in Europe and its religion writer in the U.S. to chase this story vigorously, given its significance.
Apropos of Jason Berry, who was excoriated by many church defenders, he has a very good overview of the scandal at PoliticsDaily today:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/30/what-pope-benedict-must-do/
I think Jean’s point that there are discrete aspects of the scandal that become conflated is right on.
There is the issue of how much abuse occurred and occurs in the church, the issue of who was responsible for oversight and what they should have done, the issue of what leaders should do now about the PAST, and what the church is doing NOW and into the FUTURE. Those last two are connected, I think.
If we seek to find the truth beyond the media reports of alleged coverups, perhaps we should read first person accounts such as this one from the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee who presided over the canonical criminal case of Father Lawrence Murphy:
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
Excerpt:
…I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;…
Given what(Ithink has been misconstrued as a)”frenzy,” ,the issue is falling along the lines of the usual right left/divide.
On the right, the likes of Weigel but also what I can only call those called to follow the loyalist view of Catholicism which underscores the centrality of the hierarchy and the inability to agdmit change.
On the left is a range of opinion, some of whom want major change now (papl resignation, woman’s ordination) to those who want real revelation of what happens and accountability to a lay structure (-see Justice Burke’s article of 2005 on line at Bishop Accountability today.)
Part of the problem is the cloaking of the Pope in the “good gjuy” (perfect guy?) hat with some notion of “mistakes were made.” Defenses from Donahue and Dolan appear just as that -defensiveness.
Making the NYT the problem, in my view, is misasing a chance to move foward on an issue that won’t go away.
No matter what the Pope actually said, victims perceive it as at best insensitive.
And that’s at the heart of the problem -we’re dealing with crime and allowing crime to go on and putting institutions before victims -whose voice needs to be heard as part of what justice demands.
I think Mr. Weigel has little insight or appreciation of that!
The Berry article is very good, very nuanced and fair to the Pope.
I will repeat some of the thoughts I have said elsewhere, coming to this from a Byzantine perspective, and someone who does respect Pope Benedict (even if I have several disagreements with him on various points of theology):
It doesn’t have to be hate or disrespect for people to note that those in authority have failed many. Indeed, it can be said by someone who loves the Church for hope that those in authority will realize their mistakes instead of dismissing them. One of the things which I think the West needs to learn from the East is what is taught in Forgiveness Vespers — right before the Great Fast, the priest will ask everyone in his parish to forgive him for his mistakes, and the parish will also ask each other to forgive each other for their mistakes. Why this is important is it will help overcome triumphalism which ignores human sin, and will help us all push forward in a life of penance (as we pray in the East).
Secondly, we need to move beyond the ultramontanist position. Yes, Pope Benedict is Pope. He is not, as many said, the leader of the Church. He is the first among equals. Even if you want to discuss leadership second to Christ, your bishop is your leader. There needs to be more interaction of the bishop with their flock, to truly be one with them, and yet act like a leader. Leaders will take responsibility for their failings. I hope our bishops can once again turn toward a pastoral position -true pastoral position.
I have to agree with Mrs. Steinfels (not that she or I disagree with the post that it is good for all this to come out. The church won’t deal with it unless it is exposed.)
A professor of mine always says, Cui bono?
Lawyers Andersen and Shea, and one of the other big guys (an Armenian from Boston, what is his name?) are very interesting characters. It is all very personal and emotional. They are not what I think of when I think of lawyers. The opposite we might say, of the Kathy Kaveny rational approach. They file all kinds of nonsense lawsuits that get dismissed. They have all kinds of press conferences. Shea even ran for public office in MA. They are like celebrities, and then there is the money.
I’m NOT saying this to discredit them, because they have surely accomplished good–but very much in their own way, which has often not redounded to the purity of their motives. Interestingly, I think the journalists have much better motives. Although they have their books and their pulitzers.
Weigel wrote “For the narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young … than it is about taking the Church down.”
In one defense of the Pope, the author tries to discredit Archbishop Weakland. Is that attack part of the supposed conspiracy to bring the Church down? Maybe even Weigel is in on the conspiracy. We could adopt the code name Thursday for him, and just reprint Chesterton as a rebuttal.
Douthat blogged about this today, specifically in response to Archbishop Dolan’s version of this “double standard” complaint.
I think that’s right. As for the news coverage, the “conspiring to take down the church” theory always strikes me as hysterical, but certainly much of it is opportunistic. This Fr. Murphy story got dug out of the files because there was a tenuous connection to the pope. Sinead O’Connor’s publicist saw a chance to make her name a little less of a joke now that dumping on the pope is in vogue. And so on. But by not coming clean in 2002 (or earlier), the hierarchy created the opportunity.
To Jim McK:
I do believe there is a contingent of people who thought or maybe even still think that sexual abuse was a “VII” problem, and incorrectly saw causation of the problem when it was really only correlation — the opening up of attitudes towards sexual matters is the primary reason why reporting of abuse exploded — abuse itself almost certainly predated 1965, and moreover, abusers and bishops who covered up for abusers were clearly reared in the pre-VII church. The crudest expression of this sentiment was the effort to blame it all on the gays.
The point is, I guess, is that people like Weigel didn’t necessarily mind all of the negative publicity when they felt like they could use it to discredit church authorities like Weakland, which would allow them to discredit not just him, but everyhting he stands for that they detest. But once it started being aimed at people like Law, and now, many others who they sympathize with theologically, they see the destructive potential it has for the Church’s authority in society. The article was not flattering to Weakland by any means, but it was not flattering to Ratzinger or the Vatican generally either. It’s now bigger than the novus ordo, so to speak.
NYT conspiricy??? fuggetaboutit …don’t you people ever read the NY Daily news??? Today
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/30/2010-03-30_arthur_budzinski_who_says_he_was_among_200_deaf_boys_abused_by_wisconsin_priest_.html
Douthat has been bang on, IMHO, in his column and that post — thanks Mollie.
I generally agree with the statement that one needs to be careful about the use of irony on blogs. But when an article that is meant to cast the Pope in a bad light turns out, when the light is actually turned on, to reveal precisely the bias the Pope has warned of…well, even I am not so obtuse as to miss the irony in that. When the irony is unintended, it is so much more authentic. David, I credit you for your follow-up post, though I think you hold yourself to an unnecessarily high standard for merely linking to an article.
I remember reading, many years ago in our local newspaper, a praiseworthy profile of a pillar in the community, who also happened to be a friend of the family. Even though it was a flattering piece, it missed the man. The reporter had no interest in getting *the* story, he simply wanted to get *a* story. Really, any story would do. While I am convinced that there is an anti-Catholic bias in the press, I also wonder if part if the problem is not simple laziness.
When the IRA feels the need to condemn the Irish Church we may be sure we have gone well beyond frenzy and hysteria. Here’s Ruth Dudley Edwards, an always interesting journalist and author, on the hypocrisy in the Irish media — IRA members are now treated as moral authorities in the battle against a Catholic culture of secrecy:
http://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/journalism10/IrInd10_07.html
Her conclusion: “After abandoning religion in my teens, I spent the next couple of decades practising anti-Catholicism until I realised it was time I got over it. So I learned to be a religion-friendly atheist, not least because I found in Northern Ireland many people whose Christianity had enabled them to forgive perpetrators of terrible crimes. And now my country is in the in the grip of adolescent anti-Catholicism and I feel sorry for its victims.”
I see an opportunity to engage in ecumenical dialogue with such religion-friendly atheists. I also expect we will shortly hear from the Mafia that as long as the pope escapes severe punishment for his participation in a culture of secrecy it will no longer plan mob rubouts to coincide with baptisms and church weddings; their sense of shame will be too overpowering.
Paul Flanagan: That post by Father Brundage has been gaining a lot of notice but I’m not sure what the substance of his complaints are.
He says the Times and AP and other “felt free to quote me” though they never contacted him — and yet I don’t see anything in any coverage attributed to Brundage.
He refers to handwritten notes of an Oct. 31, 1997 meeting which have his name at the top of each page and discuss the case:
http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p47
But the notes are apparently signed by a bishop, and the NYT story does not attribute them to him, as far as I can tell.
So what is the issue?
Just a question. Has anyone heard that the Vatican is considering holding a special Synod of the world’s bishops to discuss the sexual abuse situation? I have heard that the current heat on the Vatican is becoming to much for the Vatican and that it needs to “call in the troops” for consultation (and planning).
I read this somewhere (hopefully didn’t just dream it).
What an interesting sentence from Bob Nunz! “No matter what the Pope actually said, victims perceive it as at best insensitive.” So, it doesn’t make any difference what the Pope said, whatever he said is being perceived by victims as insensitive, and that’s enough to be blaming the Pope? This really is becoming a bizarre, Catch-22 situation for the Pope. If the victims perceive that he’s insensitive because the media, from which alone the victims get their information as to what the Pope says, misrepresent what he said, then why blame the Pope? Why don’t the victims blame the media for presenting the Pope as insensitive?
Try this sentence on for size: “No matter what Bob Nunz actually said, victims perceive it as at best insensitive?” How does it fit? Shouldn’t “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” apply to conversations and discussions, especially with and about members of the household of faith?
Little Bear, I haven’t heard that rumor about a synod except as wishful thinking by some. I’d be surprised, but it seems I’m always surprised.
” Shouldn’t “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” apply to conversations and discussions, especially with and about members of the household of faith?”
JAK –
No. Members of the household of the faith have no more cause for special treatment than non-members of the faith. In matters such as these we are enjoined to tell the truth — period. Demanding special consideration for those in authority or “those of our own” is an enormous part of this mess.
Spin is always a factor to weigh when controversial issues are treated in the press, or when reading press-releases. I think the Times did a good deed by putting those documents out. You can’t beat actually reading through a dossier to get a fuller sense of what might have happened than newspaper reports or public statements by interested parties might afford. That’s what makes BishopAccountability.org so valuable a resource.
This morning the USCCB Executive committee put out a statement expressing “profound gratitude for the assistance that Pope Benedict XVI has given us in our efforts to respond to victims, deal with perpetrators and to create safe environments for children.” They also cite their own efforts to deal with the issue of clerical child abuse, saying:
“With the support of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, we bishops have made a vigorous commitment to do everything in our power to prevent abuse from happening to children. We live out this commitment through the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, which calls us to respond with compassion to victims/survivors, to work diligently to screen those working with children and young people in the Church, to provide child abuse awareness and prevention education, to report suspected abuse to civil law enforcement, and to account for our efforts to protect children and youth through an external annual national audit.
And it is signed by the Executive Committee, the first signature being that of Cardinal George, our Bishops’ chosen leader, whose commitment to the Charter did not preclude his ignoring his Review Board at will, raising “serious questions about compliance with civil and church law” as well as shedding “light on the church post-Dallas and the persistent issues of monitoring, Review Board effectiveness, and clericalism.
Anyone interested in reading the Cardinal’s deposition on these matters can find it here:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/#266
Davud and Little bear; Abuse synod ???
Still a rumor but here is a link to a published report of such a synod.. .. guess waht? it’s not the NYT :)
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/28/Pope_considers_emergency_abuse_summit/
If the pope does call such an abuse synod would Weigel and his supporters here think that the Pope is contributing to the hysteria?
Ann: Of course, the golden rule should apply to all relationships, as I said. But that it not be fulfilled, say, by members of a family strikes me as more egregious than if it is not fulfilled among strangers. Patricide, matricide, or fratricide are especially horrid crimes.
It’s not that anything the Pope could say s that was perceived as insensitive -it’s what he did say.. And what he did in fact say say has been criticized widely as not exprerssing a real “mea culpla.”
Which brings me to the notion that apologies and leadership are enough.
Though the President of Toyota came here and apologized several times before congress, the investigation proceeds as it should -even NASA is involved now.
At least he clearly understood that the buck stopped with him.
I don’t undewrstand the notion of justice that drives that.
If your child was scarred for life and others had been too by persons whose managers just tried to cover up, what justice would you seek?
And if many did not understand the malfeasance in this and you were an attorney with documents underscoring the problem, would you not surface them if possible?
Beyond that, the greedy lawyer arguers never give facts on how much our Church spends on legal fees and the degree to which officials listen to their lawyers and not those injured.
Jason Berry pointed out the need for a better justice sytem inside, but it won’ t happen if we continue to handwringing over awful acts, awful lawyers, awful media, but defend a sytem that hasn’ t worked and just continues to defend itself.
Paul Moses’ original post, and the comments and links provided here, have all been outstanding. I’m grateful to be able to read such thoughtful commentary.
” Patricide, matricide, or fratricide are especially horrid crimes.”
True. All the more reason to talk about the failings of the fathers, mothers and siblings and children who hate them *before* the horrid crimes are committed.
It is important to understand when analyzing the abuse crisis, that to begin with, abusers are deceitful and manipulative.
Interesting that the hard-nosed press corps is defending Benedict on the grounds that the case was very old and that Ratzinger wasn’t involved until 1996. (See The Independent article cited above.) Perhaps the corps doesn’t know that AB Weakland brought the Murphy case to the Vatican’s attention years earlier and that at first Ratzinger did not answer Weakland’s request for help and that they later acted on the request by telling Weakland to handle it himself. In other words, the Ratzinger’s office threw the problem back down into the cellar. The fact that earlier two other bishops had asked for help with the Murphy case makes the curia look even worse.
Still I’m glad to hear that the Pope might call a synod. Pray that Benedict the Unrigid will prevail.
And do remember that Weigel is also defending the curia/Ratzinger on the grounds of this “late date of appeal” argument. Looks like Weigel hasn’t looked at the whole history of the case either.
I agree with the original post. I would go even further and say that it is a good thing that the notion of a cover-up excites journalistic interest. It is in the interests of public welfare that truth be known, and no other means are available for generating any political will to change systemic failures of institutions such as the Catholic Church, which are answerable to nobody as long as the crimes in question are kept secret. Scandal is salutary when it results in reform. If nobody knows, nobody is scandalized, and nothing changes.
Just a couple of comments on links to other articles here: Jason Berry seems very wrong when he says that the doctrine of apostolic succession is instrumental in the scandal. This is a complete red herring. There have been plenty or notorious sinners in clerical positions before, and it has never undermined that doctrine, for a simple reason. Apostolic succession does not guarantee anything about the moral qualities of the individual bishop; it only speaks to the issue of passing on the deposit of faith that comes to us from the apostles. There is an argument to be made perhaps about the idea of ontological change coming with ordination, but that’s not apostolic succession. Second, he dismisses Kung’s comment about a “worldwide conspiracy,” but I think this is a quibble about the word “conspiracy.” Certain policies of secrecy have indeed been implemented worldwide, and many bishops understood that they were not supposed to report abuse cases to civil authorities. As an organization, the Church conspired to keep quiet the entire mess, and it did this fairly consistently around the globe. I really don’t think Kung got it wrong here.
Second, like David Gibson I too was surpised to surprised to see Fr. Tom Brundage defending himself, when I never once saw him quoted in the NYT or other press. His account of the proceedings (which I have no reason to doubt) must be read against the evidence that Archbishop Weakland wrote two letters to Rome asking for Fr. Murphy’s laicization, so whatever was happening at the trial over which Tom presided, there appears also to be other actions going on. Or is there doubt that the Archbishop actually wrote those letters? It confuses me that he came on this strongly about it, when there seems to be solid evidence that supports the story told in the Times.
Finally, I must say, as a lay person I am beginning to feel a bit thoughtful over the demand that heinous clerical criminals be returned to the lay state. Is the lay state a dumping ground for noxious priests? Why isn’t the abuse of children an offense for which excommunication can be levied? Or is it?
” Scandal is salutary when it results in reform. If nobody knows, nobody is scandalized, and nothing changes.
Words of wisdom, Rita.
Bob Nunz.
I read today that the cost of the Lawyers defending the church in Ireland is already more than has been paid to victims.
I can’t cite any studies to prove this, but I have a feeling that priests who are attracted to children or young teens and who act on it run the gamut from very decent (even saintly) people who give in to temptation once or twice to reprehensible predators. All we need to do it look at “normal” heterosexual adults to know that sexual desire causes people to do things that are irrational, unwise, or self-destructive. If anybody needs to be demonized, it is the bishops who did not deal with the abusers correctly, although they of course, are people too, and were not acting out of malice. So they are not demons, either.
I wonder sometimes if surrounding the whole issue of child abuse with an aura of horror helps anyone. It is certainly not something you do when preparing a child to deal with potential abuse. It is the last thing you do when dealing with a child who has actually been abused. And I can’t imagine it helps adult victims of child abuse to be told they have been scarred for life by monsters and need lots of money in compensation for the irreparable damage that has been done.
This is not to minimize in any way the sexual abuse of children. But sometimes people get hysterical, and I think that doesn’t help. I certainly have never hesitated to criticize the Church, nor do I think reporters should refrain from investigating and publishing whatever is true. But I think things should be kept in perspective.
Though I know zero about psychology, there is an interesting article by Dr. Klaus Beier in the 13 March 2010 Tablet looking at the reasons for the sexual abuse of children, suggesting, among other things, that simply laying the blame for priestly abuse at the door of celibacy oversimplifies a far more complicated question. Celibacy (if I understand him right) is a problem only for those who assume it as a refuge from their “conflict-laden sexuality” and seek to “liberate themselves from their sexual impulses.” This, he maintains, is a “fatal fallacy.”
Whether he’s right or wrong, I have no idea; but I rather distrust mono-causal answers to such problems, such as is found in those who blame celibacy, pure and simply or homosexuality, pure and simple, or any of a number of other facets of human society.
For a moment, please let me shift the focus. Consider the phrase “Protecting the good name of the Church.” Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus worrying about His “good name” or the “good name” of His followers. If they gain a “good name” from doing what they should, well and good. If not, they still should continue doing what they should. For Jesus, having a “bad name” is not of any consequence. Unless, of course, you’ve earned it.
My comment is no more and no less applicable to the sex abuse issue than it is to any other issue. So far as I can see, “protecting the good name of the Church” is never a justification for whatever we do. Whatever we do has to have some other motive to justify it.
“I would go even further and say that it is a good thing that the notion of a cover-up excites journalistic interest. It is in the interests of public welfare that truth be known, and no other means are available for generating any political will to change systemic failures of institutions such as the Catholic Church”
I find words like this troubling. It seems such a small leap to the notion that the ends justify the means, which I think is the mentality that allows many scandal mongers to sleep peacefully.
Ok, Mark -I’ll bite -would you care to name the”many scandal mongers?”
Is this another form of the dreaded media syndrome?
I find words like this troubling. It seems such a small leap to the notion that the ends justify the means, which I think is the mentality that allows many scandal mongers to sleep peacefully.
Mark,
It seems to me that the pertinent definition of “cover-up” here is “a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public.” In general, cover-ups are not good things, so I see no problem with the fact the journalists tend to want to expose cover-ups. It’s one of the things that journalism is all about. I don’t think the media in general are “scandal mongers,” and even some of the scandal mongers (The National Enquirer) do some good things (like exposing the hypocrisy of John Edwards) now and again. I think I would say muckrakers, not scandal mongers. And I think we could use more of them.
Bernard, however, “scandal” is clearly something Paul cared about — as in, making sure Christians conducted themselves so as not to give scandal to the Romans or other authorities. The context was fear of persecution as a result of being held up as a threat to social norms or institutions. Indeed, it is likely that the suppression of female influence in church matters was the result of this concern. Undermining slavery or even, refusing to pay taxes, would have been other examples of disruptive conduct.
What is ironic is that Paul’s tactic was to conform to at least some of these social norms as a means of being left in peace on matters of doctrine. Obviously, over the course of two millenia, the position of the church in society has changed, but the kernel of a principle is still there: an institution that flouts deeply held principles of the society at large, in this case, the evenhanded prosecution of crimes, risks its autonomy and authority.
Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus worrying about His “good name” or the “good name” of His followers.
Lisa Miller had a column in Newsweek about the abuse crisis recently that was peppered with interesting quotes. One that struck me was the following:
“Consider the phrase “Protecting the good name of the Church.” Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus worrying about His “good name” or the “good name” of His followers.”
Bernard, I don’t disagree. I would say that what Jesus bequeathed to us (among other blessings) was an ethical way of living, and that is what is important here. The “good name of the church” flows from that ethical way of life, it is not an end in itself. The “good name of the chiurch” can’t long persist apart from the virtuous life that undergirds it. If we care about the good name of the church – and I do – then we should make sure the church is living virtuously. Even if it means tearing out the eye or chopping off the hand.
Coming into this conversation late, I have observed that —–
Mark said:
“The idea of a bureaucracy like that of the Roman Catholic Church, with clear lines of authority going up to one person who gets huge deference, is all but unthinkable in the American culture.” In this day and age, I think that attitude has extended throughout (at least) the Western world.
Michael Cowtan asked:
“Is the NY Times worrying at a bone?”
Did the Washington Post “worry at a bone” at the time of the Watergate break-in? If they hadn’t, would we have known what we knew when we knew it?
Weigel wrote:
“For if the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of sexual abusers and their protectors, then the Catholic Church has no claim to a place at the table of public moral argument.”
David Nickol wrote:
“The Church has no hesitation dictating moral positions on gay rights and same-sex marriage, the use of condoms in fighting AIDS, and other issues that affect millions of people across the world. But when it doesn’t like the media coverage of its own moral standards, it whines –“
Therein lies the danger of constantly holding this church up as the physical manifestation of Christ-like behavior on earth.
Jean Raber implies bias:
“NYT hits for “Texas board of education” in the past year, 193 hits
NYT hits for “Catholic Church” + “sex abuse” in the past year, 370 hits”
And where does the Texas board of education posit that it has the right to give moral advice as does the Catholic Church? “Holier than thou” is a tempting target.
Bob Nunz said:
“And that’s at the heart of the problem – we’re dealing with crime and allowing crime to go on and putting institutions before victims -whose voice needs to be heard as part of what justice demands.”
The Irish reaction to the letter from B16 revealed the inability of this pope and his handlers to understand that unless the punishments flow UP to the episcopacy, all else will appear to be nothing more than whitewash.
Ross Douthat said:
“Catholic scandals are worse even when they’re the same as everybody else’s, because it’s Catholicism’s business to be better.”
Duhhh!
Little Bear asked:
“Has anyone heard that the Vatican is considering holding a special Synod of the world’s bishops to discuss the sexual abuse situation?”
Synod, si. Bishops only, no! Dammit, it’s about time that the wagon-circlers start talking with and listening to the folks who have suffered the most from these scandals and also have to pay the tab over and over and over. That’s the laity, folks; the laity! And laity includes men AND women.
Fr. K said:
“ ‘No matter what Bob Nunz actually said, victims perceive it as at best insensitive?’ How does it fit?”
The last time I looked, Bob N hasn’t begun to claim the sense of moral leadership that B16 does. If Bob does take on that mantle, then let him bear the same heat.
Jim P said:
“The ‘good name of the church’ can’t long persist apart from the virtuous life that undergirds it. If we care about the good name of the church – and I do – then we should make sure the church is living virtuously. Even if it means tearing out the eye or chopping off the hand.”
The truth shall make you free — but first it will make you miserable. As it should in very many cases.
Paul was concerned about good example. I don’t think it is accurate to say he was concerned with doctrine. The monarchichal church took a major interest in scandal and stealing for power reasons. They were/are concerned about the perception of its officials so much so that they would severely punish any criticism. The premise is that the poor perception or respect for its officials would diminish its influence. Stealing was of interest since the rich, a usual ally of the hierarchy were the usual targets of stealing. This is why there is such tremendous stress in Catholic moral theology about slander and stealing. They are serious threats to the power base.
So Bernard makes a profound point imho. Words fly and example attracts. The church flourishes under the examples of its members. Not the doctrinaire struts of its princes and excellencies.
Barbara, thanks for your comment. I think we’re on the same page, but am not sure. If we’re not, I’d be glad to learn where we differ in this matter.
David G., regarding Paul Flanagan’s comment:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5879
Above I said this: “In this day and age, I think that attitude has extended throughout (at least) the Western world.”
See this: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxurRwqriy9QKJu99vhhYtdl6nIQD9EOT5JG0
Bill, forgive me if I don’t comment on what you say. I don’t see that i have anything useful to respond.
Jim, I’m glad that we agree here. From my ordinary experience at the university I taught at, I know the reasons people have for preserving the “good name’ of the institution. It just seems to me that when it comes to the Church’s good name, the only way in which we can preserve that name is to eschew all self-protectiveness and focus firmly on service to all the Lord’s people. That means being always ready to acknowledge our sinfulness and always being forthcoming with our accounts of why we do what we do. This holds good for me and for the Pope and everyone in between.
I realize that misunderstandings are inevitable among even the most careful people. But if we are to be vehicles for people to encounter Christ, then we have to go the extra mile.
If any of you were really to know me, you’d know that I regularly fail in all this. So anyone can rightly say to me “Physician, heal thyself.”
Despite the fact that there are some who have brought scandal to Christ’s Church, The Truth is The Truth, Yesterday, Today, and Always.
Nancy, that link just goes to a Catholic World New piece about the Brundage article — which seems to have no grounds for complaint. He was never mentioned in the Times. I still don’t know what he is referring to.
Bernard, I am sure that all your philosophy wanes in contrast to your great attitude.
Jimmy Mac, I must protest your assertion that “Jean Raber implies bias.”
I merely pointed out that the NYT MAY be ignoring or missing other stories with at least as much immediacy and impact as the RCC clerical abuse scandals.
That is not the same as saying the NYT has a “bias” against the Church. I impute no motives. I subscribe to no conspiracy theories.
“I subscribe to no conspiracy theories.”
That’s exactly what someone who is part of a conspiracy would say.
Unagidon, not sure what point you’re trying to make, or maybe I’m just tired or stupid. Or both.
Nightie night.
Jean:
Scratch “implies bias”
Insert “compares”
Jean, I think Unagidon is just funnin’ you. :-)
Bernard – re: your comment of 3/30 6:49 pm – Yes! Yes! Agree completely! A beautiful reflection and seasonally timely, too.
“Unagidon, not sure what point you’re trying to make, or maybe I’m just tired or stupid. Or both.
Nightie night.”
No point in particular other than people who look for conspiracies will always find them no matter what one says.
Yah, but I see no conspiracy at the NYT.
Anybody who’s ever worked with reporters and editors, who tend to be competitive, contentious, and jealous of their turf, would know how ludicrous that seems. The cliche “herding cats” comes to mind.
Bernard, it’s not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I think it’s just an interesting construct — Jesus ended up dying on a cross, one might say because he didn’t care about what the secular and religious establishment of the day thought about him or his message(setting aside theological reasoning). But for Christianity to thrive, that tension had to be managed, which Paul was perceptive enough to see, however much we don’t like some of the compromises that were made. (Message to Bill: Christianity might not even exist if such compromises had not been made.)
What strikes me as genuinely interesting is the modern parallel raised by the abuse scandal, which is the degree to which the Church can, and cannot, refuse to go along with social norms without being, ultimately, sanctioned by civil and criminal authorities. In some ways, yes, the society around it changed while the Church did not, but in other ways, it has struck me for a long time, the Church has been extraordinarily naive and perhaps quite presumptuous in thinking that the completely free hand it has in matters of doctrine would find a parallel in its dealing with abusive or predatory priests. How else can you explain what appears to be outright refusal to hand criminal priests over to criminal authorities, never mind allowing them to continue church duties pretty much unhindered?
“The cliche “herding cats” comes to mind.”
Jean –
I read that Ratzinger was so kind to the stray cats he met on his way to work at the Vatican that one day a little crowd of them who knew him followed him and started to go right into the Vatican with him. The Swiss Guards were alarmed, thinking the place was being invaded. Maybe he will be able to do something with the curia after all??
Barbara, you are certainly right that “the tension has to be managed.” Without institutions, there could be no durable ministry. Ministers need appropriate formation in prayer, education, emotional support, etc. These institutions unavoidably interface with secular institutions established for different purposes. Hence, as history shows, the likelihood of strong tensions. The task for us who participate in both sorts of institutions is to recognize the tensions for what they are and to give both Caesar and God what is due to each.
History also shows that we Christians, acting in and through Church institutions, have tried to eliminate the tension by somehow immunizing ecclesiastical institutions from the operations of secular institutions. Secular institutions, on the other hand, are always tempted to seek to control the whole of life, including religious practice.
For Christians, so far as I can see, the crucial task in dealing with this tension is to avoid thinking in terms of a zero-sum competition between these institutions. At the end of the day, whatever the Church claims as good for itself, it has also to believe and present arguments that these very goods are also good for secular society. The Church has to do this, not primarily in hopes of having their claims accepted by secular society, but to be true to its own mission.
Ann, yes, I’ve heard that the Pope has a special fondness for cats, but can’t keep one as a pet. It makes me feel somewhat tenderhearted for him, and I hope all the cats in heaven are waiting for him and praying (cuz isn’t that what purring is?) that he’ll find some way to heal the rifts in the Church.
Thanks to all who responded to my question. And Jimmy Mac—I agree 100% with you.
Bernard, I have just one quibble, with your comment “History also shows that we Christians, acting in and through Church institutions, have tried to eliminate the tension by somehow immunizing ecclesiastical institutions from the operations of secular institutions. Secular institutions, on the other hand, are always tempted to seek to control the whole of life, including religious practice.”
That statement might be true as it pertains to secular and religious instititutions where the religious side of the equation are groups like the Amish, the Amana or Orthodox Jews who run their own schools. But it is beyond question that the Catholic Church has tried, and still tries, to bend secular law and practice to its own moral vision. This isn’t medieval Spain, the priorites, acceptable methods and likelihood of prevailing on secular authorities have all changed. But the fact that the Church as an organization WANTS to influence the larger society in which it moves, indeed, sees it as part of its mission on earth, makes the Church’s handling of abusive priests in ways that are so removed from secular norms, particularly puzzling.
The beat goes on.
Last night I flipped over to Anderson Cooper to see if there were some headlines I missed and I caught the end of Larry King (whose show I think serves little purpose.)
There was Bill Donahue shouting down or trying to shout down Tom Roberts,wrong as Donahue could be, Donahue was touting the homosexuals are to blame argument.
He is a loud, obnoxious and, as far as I can see, ignorant individual passing himself off as a defender of the Church.
First thing I wake up today and therei s Sylvia Pogiolli from Rome (NPR) on the scandal there and how things continued to be covered up by a powerful Church/State alliance.
Today, Maureen Dowd takes on Abp. Dolan again in an op-ed.I’m sure more arguments to folow on the NYT and is it slanted?
The beat goes on.
In reflecting on this and what’s happened, I continue to think the issue of power lies at the heart of what’s happening.
The problem of crime I spoke of – that many do not want to emphasize – is a crime of misused power at bottom – not sex.
The coverup of those crimes is rooted in the need to keep power as much as possible (leading to things like labelling critics “scandal mongers.”)
The problem is institutional power, not only inept governance of clergy including Bishops and curia and perhaps the Pope himself, but a mutaully reinforcing ned for control that comes out of the Roman center and has been heightened in a reactionary way by the the curial forces there post VII.
So the call for change has to do not only with sex abuse and its handling but a realignmenmt of power in balance within the Church that has been strongly resisted since the uproar of Humane Vitae.
Issues of power call for loyalists of all stripes, well intentioned or anxious to move ahead, to support the status quo and construct defenses for crimes that are and were indefensible -crimes that need acting on and not just words. Weigel fits right in to return to the start of this thread as do the Opus Dei seminarians who flocked to support BXVI today.
Josef Ratzinger is a complex man shaped by his history and the forces around him. He has many fine points and some awful ones too(I’d suggest poor listening skills, despite the Benedict title,) as one.
But the issue reaches beyonf him or defending him to how a Church reacts to crimes by its servers -all the way up the line. It’s an issue of accountability and trustworthiness. It’s an issue of power ,
Jesus went among the weak and the powerless to serve…
where is his Church today as the beat goes on?
Yesterday, Ed Gleason asked whether anyone read the New York Daily News. The News’ lead editorial on March 31, 2010, is titled “Fairness for the Pope.” Link Here
When Father Imbelli asks whether there “might indicate a further agenda to be at work” in the NYT reporting, that doesn’t mean there is some kind of conspiracy. What’s at play is a particular view of the Church that colors all their reporting. When the reporters and editors have all bought in to a particular way of looking at things, there isn’t any need to conspire – it’s just how things are.
When I read the NYT and the Bosotn Globe, the anti-Catholic attitude is palpable. It is, of course, hard to make this point when what is being reported involves misconduct by Church officials, but it is there.
Every year nearly twice as many children are sexually abused in the US by public employees (usually in schools) and publicly sponsored foster parents than were abused during any decade of the last 50 years in the Church in the US. This doesn’t even touch on the various forms of physical abuse, up to and including homicide, that occur. Before people get their knickers in a twist, this isn’t an excuse for misconduct in the Church, it’s just a question of perspective.
As David points out, the NYT did report on an abuse case in the Hasidic community in NY. Interestingly, this “fairly major” story involving an ongoing investigation and trial and multiple victims was “splashed” all over . . . the Metro Section. So when I see daily, front page stories about the pope involving cases from 30 years ago in which he had only indirect involvement, I have to wonder about the purpose.
Sean, for the 11 thousandth time, it’s what the Church did when that abuse was reported that is the scandal, not just the abuse itself, which will occur at some point in situations where adults have a lot of access to children. And the NYT HAS reported on abuse in schools, not just occasionally, but in some depth. The governance challenges in school abuse are different — abusers are not reassigned, but the school has very limited power to keep the person from ever working in a school again if a family refuses to press charges. Sure, there are abusers at school — but you usually hear about it after the school has called the police as soon as it figures it out. The Church didn’t call the police. Big difference.
“Today, Maureen Dowd takes on Abp. Dolan again in an op-ed.”
Here it is. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html?src=me&ref=general
I guess my description would be: a string of cheap shots.
“When I read the NYT and the Bosotn Globe, the anti-Catholic attitude is palpable.”
Exactly what have you palpated, Sean? Have you studied number of stories over time to get a sense of balance? What about tone, diction, placement of news tells you there’s an “anti-Catholic” attitude. I don’t see where you or Weigel or Fr. Imbelli have offered any real evidence of anti-Catholic bias.
Honestly, these things CAN be quantified, and there are ombudsmen at many news outlets who would be happy to hear what you’ve discovered. And I would be happy to listen to it, too, if you can come up with more cogent evidence than that the NYT is anti-Catholic b/c a lot of Catholic say it is.
So far, Margaret is one of the few on here who has tried to gauge balance in the story by comparing coverage to the the original documents. Thank you, Margaret.
Were St Thomas More and Erasmus anti-Catholic for their desire for reform against abuses in the Catholic Church? The fact of the matter is we are called to be looking for constant reform — if this is the case, then the one who loves the Church will not fear reform to deal with these areas where the Church has failed. Balthasar, after all, reminds us that the Church is the Casta Meretrix. Let’s not ignore this aspect of the Church, and let new structures of sin develop within based upon the defensive posture we see today. I love the Church. I like Pope Benedict. But I realize, he is a man, and one put in a position of authority — authority means responsibility.
“it’s what the Church did when that abuse was reported that is the scandal, not just the abuse itself”
Am I crazy to think that, logically, the abuse itself has to be worse than any alleged coverup?
Henry, thank you for that comment. I’ve been wondering for some time where the saints are who will lead the reform we need this time around.
“Am I crazy to think that, logically, the abuse itself has to be worse than any alleged coverup?”
Mark P: it’s been a long time since the original post by Paul Moses, but here is what he said about this:
“journalists aren’t especially interested in individual cases of sexual abuse, but are very interested in stories about cover-ups in powerful institutions. In other words, the best course for the bishops was to be truthful. This is what has made clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church the subject of so many scathing reports, whether from the news media or grand juries: that a cover-up occurred at high levels in many dioceses. When a scandal of this proportion is uncovered, journalists will naturally want to see how far it goes – the basis for the latest round of stories. To say that sexual abuse in other churches or other sectors of society does not get the same media attention misses the point. The issue isn’t that Catholic priests are allegedly prone to commit sexual abuse, but that a small percentage of them were freed to do so, again and again, due to gross mismanagement, secrecy and lack of accountability on the part of church authorities. However dated most of the sexual abuse cases are, this story still calls out to be covered because some of those who failed to stop repeat abusers remain in positions of authority. ”
In other words, media outlets like newspapers operate according to their own logic of getting the next story and selling newspapers. It’s part of the environment in which the church exists (and one that the church frequently is able to leverage to its benefit – in addition to stories about the scandal, I saw some puff pieces in the local newscasts last weekend about it being Palm Sunday, with shots of faithful people in church waving their palm branches, and clergy resplendent in their red vestments).
The legal system is another institution of society that operates according to its own logic. A plaintiff’s lawyer apparently is one of the NYTimes’ primary sources for this latest round of coverage. He has an agenda. I agree that the abuse may be worse than the coverup. But parish priests are poor and dioceses are rich.
Before people get their knickers in a twist, this isn’t an excuse for misconduct in the Church, it’s just a question of perspective.
Sean,
It seems so clear to me that the Catholic Church — as a single, highly centralized, ancient, worldwide organization of over a billion people, which claims to be the only true Christian Church and tells the whole world how it should behave — is going to get a different kind of press coverage than almost any other entity. That is not anti-Catholicism. The story of the Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn was a local story. The abuse of individual children by relatives or friends of the family, even though it happens thousands of times all over the world, is still really thousands of individual stories that do not add up to one big story. However, the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is one very big story, and it makes perfect sense for the media to treat it as one very big story.
I think what some people view as anti-Catholicism is simply NON-Catholicism. Reporters don’t write about the pope and the bishops and the Church in general with the deference and reverence you think is due to the Vicar of Christ, the successors to the apostles, and our Holy Mother the Church. And they shouldn’t.
Jim
You are welcome, and thank you! I posted something similar in a facebook discussion on the USCCB page to find it vanish. I’m a very faithful Catholic, but I do come with a different perspective of ecclesiology because of my studies but also because I am Eastern, and the second allows me to understand criticism of hierarchs without seeing it as a criticism of the Church. Too many people think otherwise, and keep acting like “He’s the Pope, the Spirit directs him” as if that answers everything. I did say the following in that message, which I didn’t say here, but have seen echoed here, and I think it fits as my final statement on the matter:
Lest we forget, just a couple years ago, people were making all kinds of defenses for Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado; people were saying “how can one question” and put up all kinds of defenses to those who were abused and those who knew the abused and were asking what is up. Things would have gone better if things were open and admitted at the start. It is better things come clean, and admit mistakes, admit we got bad advice (for those bishops who followed it), admit they have a responsibility for what happened (because bishops are responsible for their priests), and let us move forward. Let’s stop pointing fingers at others who do wrong (yes, they do, and the sin of child abuse is very bad in secular institutions like public schools). The Church is expected to be better, and therefore, will be criticized more when it fails those expectations — as it should be, as Scripture indicates authorities will be.
The Church is expected to be better . . . .
It’s a double standard! People shouldn’t hold the Vicar of Christ and the Successors to the Apostles to a higher standard just because they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit!
David N: :-)
In all seriousness, I suggest we all adopt as our motto on this topic: “The church is expected to be better”.
Bob Nunz–
Not only Slvia Pogiolli on NPR this morning, but one “David Gibson” also. ;)
“Honestly, these things CAN be quantified, and there are ombudsmen at many news outlets who would be happy to hear what you’ve discovered. And I would be happy to listen to it, too, if you can come up with more cogent evidence than that the NYT is anti-Catholic b/c a lot of Catholic say it is.”
The Center for Media & Public Affairs has done an extensive study of the topic, although not limited to just the NYT. To the best of my knowledge, it appears it is unfortunately not available on-line for free. Nevertheless, an executive summary is available here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0028.html
“I’ve been wondering for some time where the saints are who will lead the reform we need this time around.”
I’m afraid too many of them have decamped for other shores. That is why “former Catholic” is the second largest denomination in the U.S.
I call upon the priests of this church to rediscover their voices, their backbones and whatever, and join the laity of SNAP and VOTF loudly and strongly in protest about the abuses that have happened and may even be happening today.
A few jobs will be lost and maybe some pensions taken away. So?
That Benedict the Absolute Monarch “can’t” have a pet cat makes me want to weep. Why doesn’t he just move his office to Subieco?
Jean
Unfortunately I haven’t the time to do an in depth study, although it looks like others have, and I am sure they don’t convince you either. I just find it bothersome when the national meeting of VOTF that draws a crowd of a few hundred gets half a page of coverage, but when a conference of more than 3000 Catholic men that happened a week before it gets none. Or when the coverage of the same conference from the year before centers on a dozen or so protesters outside rather than the thousands inside the meeting. Or when dissident Bishop Geoffrey Robinson come flogging his new book to a crowd of 30 people in Boston it’s on page A3, but the Proud2BCatholic youth conference or the Steubenville youth conferences drawing thousands of young people are ignored. It bothers me when the accusation of a priest gets front page coverage for a week, and his later exoneration is on page D4. And it really got old when there was week after week and series after series on parish closings and occupations, and no one ever asks what are they supposed to do when more than 2/3 of Catholics don’t support their parishes – close someone else’s parish?
Perhaps it will take a headline “Pope Devours Live Kittens” to convince you.
“(Message to Bill: Christianity might not even exist if such compromises had not been made.) ”
Barbara, what I am objecting to about your characterization of St. Paul is that it is a popular one which has been discredited by many. Paul’ emphasis was always on ethics and my position is Paul supports Bernard’s view. I would like to know specifically how you see Paul in this way rather than generalizations.
it is worth reading the long article by Cardinal Karl Lehmann on Benedict XvI and the scandal, in “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, April 1st 2010
“Unfortunately I haven’t the time to do an in depth study, although it looks like others have, and I am sure they don’t convince you either.”
Good heavens, how do you know studies don’t persuade me? You haven’t produced any! Neither do you seem to have taken a step back to examine your own claims of bias.
Instead, you assume I’m as beyond hope as you perceive the NYT and the Boston Globe to be, despite the fact that you still have not proved any bias.
Here’s one for ya: Why is the national TV news reporting on every whistle stop and Tweet coming out of Sarah Palin? She’s had a mention at least four nights in seven in the past week. I’d say there’s a big bias in favor of rightwing ex-beauty queen governors who like to use gun imagery and eat moose chili.
John W. Martens has a moving post over on the America blog. Rather than pluck a quote from it to support my own personal views, I’ll just recommend reading it the whole thing.
Two quick notes:-I didn;t mention David Gibson on NPR today because I didn’ twant to offend his great modesty.
To Jiom P.
If Jeff Anderson has an “agenda”, so does your boss, Cardinal George and Abp. DFDolan and otehr loyalists with bestrd interest in defensiveness.
I’m tired, but the beat goes on with rationales and rationalizations that I look at in dismay.
I’m not ashamed to admit it, but i often frame my feeling tones in the music of the theatre I was weaned on growing up in new York.
My own sadness reminds me of the brilliant song by Kurt Weill about the South Sfrican minister who son is arrested for murder.
“But I’ve been walking through the night and the day
Till my eyes get weary and my heads turn gray,
And sometimes it seems that maybe God’s ghone away
forgetting the promise I heard Him say.
And We’re Lost out here in the stars
Little stars, big strs, blowing throug the night…
And we’re lost out here in the stars.”
And the mess we’re in makes met think of an incredible lyric by Stephen Sondheim in Into the Woods:
“No more giants
waging war
Can’t we just pursue our lives
with our Children and our wives?
How do you ignore
all the witches,All the curses,
All the wolves, all the lies,
The false hopes, the goodbyes,
The reverses,
All the wondering whateven worse
is yet to come?
All the CHILDREN
All the giants
No More!”
David Nickol –
Thanks for recommending the Martens post. I find his interpretation of St. Paul particularly interesting — that Paul was addressing male molesters of boys when he wrote condemning men lying with men/males. What is the word he uses in Greek — does it mean “male” generically of “men” specifically. If the former it could affect the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
Jean
I was referring to the study cited by MAT as well as other studies and stories regarding bias that the Media Research Center and others have done.
I understand your great respect for the profession of journalism. Unfortunately, having been on the other side of hit pieces by major news organizations I don’t share the myth of grand objectivity. It has been my experience that journalists often go into a story with narrative already laid out and they use what facts support that narrative and ignore or twist others. I found the article linked by Paul F above very interesting, and what is more interesting is that no one has commented on it. If true, the NYT reporters didn’t bother to check their sources even minimally and created the Ratzinger connection out of whole cloth. Why did they do that? Why didn’t they check to see if the documents they attributed to people were actually written by them? Was it bias, or just laziness?
Sean, that story linked to above by Paul Flanagan is false. Brundage is not mentioned in the NYT story, and nothing is attributed to him. It seems to be made up out of whole cloth. Just click on the dang stories and read them. Is that too much work?
Many in the Church are saying today that all this abuse was decades ago. But it seems to me that is is small comfort. True, we have procedures in place now to prevent further offenses. But we know that that having procedures and following them are two different things. And, sadly, it often takes as a decade or two before an abused child has the ability to come to terms with what has happened to him or to her, and speak out about it. It woiuld be a great mistake to think that because there are procedures in place on paper, all is well and there will be an end to the crisis.
David G. –
About the Brundage matter -
I read an article or editorial in the New York Daily News about the matter. As I remember it referred to an article by Brundage in an Alaska newspaper in which he gives his side of the story. As I remember he says that the AP and NYT quoted him and I”m wondering if the Alaska paper initiated the problem, a typo maybe.
Don’t remember where I got the link to the Daily News. It might have been the VOTF bishopsaccountability.com site. At any rate, i think the Daily News article was yesterday. You might stil catch it online, but I couldn’t find it.
At any rate it is not clear to me that there was lying.
David G. –
Here’s a bishopsaccountability.com site that will give you the Daily News thing, plus a lot of other sites that might be of interest”", e.g., Cardinal Levada has weighted in on the controversy.. Also, just search “Brundage” on the bishopsacct. site home page.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/
David G. –
Here is an article which includes the Brundage article in the Alaskan diocesan paper.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_30_Thompson_ThePope.htm
In it, among other things, Fr. Brundage says,
“With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people”. Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.
“The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. reference to. What a mare’s nest.”
It isn’t clear, I think, that he is accusing the NYT of misquoting him, though it is very clear that he is accusing some of the others papers. NOthing like indefinite antecedents to make a text obscure. I haven’t seen any other reference to a forged handwritten paper. What a mare’s nest.
Oh, Lord, my quotation of Fr. Brundage’s last paragraph is not right. It should simply be:
“The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them.”
One of the thing which saddens me this week is that all the responses we get tend to be “we are being attacked” as the main focus, and only secondarily, a, “yes, things happened and we are sorry.” While I believe it is more than mere words, the way they are doing it will make many read them as mere words. It’s easy to say those words, but the rest of the action is not so pure.
More to the point, this kind of defensive posture is exactly what we saw around the LC debacle. It is overly defensive. It smacks of — something more is out there. I hope and pray more this is not the case, but I fear, this posture is because there is more, and worse, than what we have seen. What, I do not know. Whatever it is, it would make me leave the Church. I know history too well to know the imperfections of its leaders and the kinds of things they have done. But I know how such revelations would affect many.
Even if there is nothing more, I think many people see the difference between the way Cardinal Ratzinger investigated theological error vs. the way he investigated claims of priestly sins. While I think the first is indeed very important, the imbalance is clear and many will not appreciate that.
I don’t think he should resign — but I do think he could be more out in the open with what he has done, and what he has not done, and take the Church out of this defensive posture. We need to open up the windows, we need to let the fresh air in. We need to raze the bastions once again. We need to stop hearing “in this case, look at how open he was.” Ok. Good. One good example. A couple good examples. What about other examples? An imbalance in that presentation itself in the defensive responses we see concerns me.
And Susan is right. We don’t know what is going on now, but we do know, the defensive posture we see is not going to be seen as encouraging. Jesus, when he was innocent, spoke no words. We see all kinds of words this week…
So, once again… I can understand the suspicions people have. When people start asking questions and they get the “anti-Catholic” card played on them, something is wrong. When will we hear “those who abused the children attacked the Church”? We only hear reporters are doing the harm. That is not right. Those who abused the children attacked the Church — there is no doubt about it. Those who helped them do it, from mistaken advice or whatnot, helped in an attack on the Church. Let’s remember what the true attack was here!
Somehow that came out wrong… “Whatever it is, it would make me leave the Church” should have been “it would not make me leave the Church.”
Sean, MAT’s study comes from the KofC and the Catholic League. Not the most impartial source, but I’m willing to hear what they have to say. Unfortunately, MAT’s link only gives an executive summary, which is low on actual facts and stats and high on subjective analysis. For instance, one section says that word choice and tone of news articles since 1970 increasingly make the church look “authoritarian” and “oppressive,” but without noting WHAT WORDS lead them to this conclusion. Moreover, the link concludes that journalists are really just story-tellers, not fact gatherers.
Well, how can you doubt a source who makes blanket statements like that?
So, you were right, Sean, I’m not convinced.
And while we’re speaking of anti-Catholicism, how about instead of freaking out over the NYT, Catholics, you direct your outrage at Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church, where anti-Catholic messages (“Priests Rape Boys”) and other slogans disrupted a Maryland Catholic family’s funeral for their soldier son. The Ba’tists are saying that soldiers deserve to die for an America that defends the rights of homosexuals.
I noticed that it was Bill O’Reilly who stepped up to pay for the family’s court costs (they lost an appeal by the Westboro church members, who said they had a right to free speech).
Nothing from Bill Donohue on this over on the Catholic League’s site. He’s busy chasing swamp gas that looks like discrimination while ignoring the real thing. He’s been busy courting fundiegelicals in the past couple of years. Doesn’t want to hurt that coalition with those nice folks.
Meantime the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal of the appeal. Hopefully some Catholics will join O’Reilly in helping the family mount a defense.
Latest on Westboro case is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/national/main6278265.shtml
Want to see how vicious fundies can be? Visit the Westboro Baptist Church’s home page. URL is easy to remember: godhatesfags.com
David
Like Brundage, I read a bunch of stories related to this Milwaukee case this week. So the quote was not in this story but in another that was on their site. Mea culpa.
But that still doesn’t address the underlying issues. Why didn’t any reporters – NYT AP whatever – even try to talk to the one person who knew the most about the case and its processing? They create the impression that the pope personally knew about and made an affirmative decision not to defrock this priest. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, he wasn’t defrocked, but he was pending trial, and as Brundage points out he was informed that the trial was on hold because of the accused’s health, and given that he died within days is that such an outrageous decision? Unfortunately “Vatican Declined to Defrock Priest” fits the narrative while “Accused Priest Died Before Being Defrocked” doesn’t.
Jean
Please – that’s a bit much. I understand your problem with “fundies” and with Donohue, but putting the Westboro nuts in the same camp as other fundamentalist Christians and then suggesting the Catholic League is giving them a pass is more than a stretch. It’s downright unfair. Maybe they just don’t think their nonsense is worth commenting on.
On the other hand, we do know the Catholic League gave a pass to Glenn Beck. Seems like attacks on traditional Christianity (Catholic and otherwise) is fine with the Catholic League. It was the media which defended the Church on this one. Was Bill angry? They could defend on the cheap?
“True, we have procedures in place now to prevent further offenses. But we know that that having procedures and following them are two different things. And, sadly, it often takes as a decade or two before an abused child has the ability to come to terms with what has happened to him or to her, and speak out about it. It woiuld be a great mistake to think that because there are procedures in place on paper, all is well and there will be an end to the crisis.”
Susan – I agree entirely. We must remain vigilant on behalf of our children.
“In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him.”
–from this morning’s NYT
Henry
Specifically, what did Beckattack that should have been commented on? Enlighten us.
“Many in the Church are saying today that all this abuse was decades ago. But it seems to me that is is small comfort. True, we have procedures in place now to prevent further offenses. But we know that that having procedures and following them are two different things. And, sadly, it often takes as a decade or two before an abused child has the ability to come to terms with what has happened to him or to her, and speak out about it. It woiuld be a great mistake to think that because there are procedures in place on paper, all is well and there will be an end to the crisis.”
———–
Agree.
From this morning’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/7288285BEE562E28862576F800079918?OpenDocument
“He will have to undergo sex offender treatment and stay away from children and schools, parks, playgrounds and other such places. He also must forfeit the Toyota Camry he drove to the sting.
“Immediately after Grady’s arrest last summer, St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson suspended him and said that if the charges were found to be true, Grady would “never work again in the archdiocese.”
“Carlson also said that as long as the charges remained allegations, the archdiocese would pay Grady’s legal fees.
Sean
You can’t be serious. So hah hah. Nice joke.
Seriously Henry – maybe you watch Beck all the time, but I don’t. What has he said about the Church that should concern us?
Pace Gerelyn @ 8:46 AM, here is what Fr. Brundage actually said in the Times, April 1:
“He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.”
An important distinction about the AP on the Times Web; nonetheless, regular readers of the Times Web might reasonably conclude that the AP and Reuters posts on its “front” page have survived some Times editor’s scrutiny. Apparently not.
Brundage’s comments appears in what editors call a “backing and filling” story about the original story. Seems like some criticism of the original has brought on…well, a bit of defensive cover, just like the story above it (in the paper paper) interviewing Cardinal Levada, Ratzinger’s successor at the CDF. But what do the rest of you see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01chrono.html
Sean, he said that people who attend church should abandon any church that uses the term “social justice” anywhere, anytime in describing its mission. Social justice is just “code” for communism. Let’s just say Bill Donahue soft-peddled Beck’s statement, saying something to the effect that Beck was only encouraging people to “parish shop” to find a parish that they were most comfortable in. I don’t watch Beck either but this one made the MSM for a few days.
Hi, Margaret!
When I saw all the comments here (and on America) about Brundage being misquoted, I couldn’t figure out what it was about, because I had read the original story (in the paper paper, not online) and didn’t see his name at all. All the criticism about “shoddy” journalism seemed strange and defensive.
Then I read his article in the Alaska paper (where he talked about “syntax” and misspelled “reined”), and I was even more confused.
Sorry if I’ve added to the confusion by posting here a quotation from this morning’s NYT. Agree that they’re defending themselves, as they should, imho.
(Good letters to the editor in the NYT this morning, too.)
Sean, the NYT story today pretty well puts the Brundage myth to bed. He was not quoted in the Times, nor was anything attributed to him. It’s a patently false story that has of course made the rounds of the blogosphere. Seems we could use more journalism, not less.
Here is Cardinal Levada’s response to The Times coverage, from the Vatican Web site:
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html
The question was asked above if The Times should have interviewed Father Brundage prior to the March 25 article. I think the answer is yes, ideally. But the paper exercised proper diligence by interviewing his boss, Archbishop Weakland, who seems to have been better situated to know what was going on. I don’t think the lack of an interview with Father Brundage is an issue, although he has some interesting insights.
Cardinal Levada is critical of The Times article for focusing the story on Vatican responsibility, rather than on the responsibility of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. I can understand his complaint, since the case came to Rome very late. But I can understand why the Times story is focused the way it is. Journalists go after the new news, and their focus of inquiry is no longer on what happened in diocesan offices in the U.S. – that’s old news – but on understanding the Vatican role, and in particular the role of Pope Benedict. It’s a valid line of inquiry made newly relevant by issues that arise from the sex abuse scandal in Ireland. The documents in this case pierce the secrecy of the process in the Vatican in a remarkable way. I don’t see how anyone can read those documents – particularly the social worker’s notes on Father Murphy’s admissions – and not come away outraged that church officials in both Milwaukee and Rome failed to take decisive action.
As I wrote in the above post, I do think there are some problems with the story The Times ran on March 25. The timing of Father Murphy’s death belonged at the top of the story, not the bottom, and the second paragraph should not have asserted that the documents show church officials’ main concern was to protect the church’s name (a judgment that should be left to readers to decide).
Cardinal Levada’s critique of The Times coverage hasn’t changed my opinion of the March 25 story, but I do think he is right to point out, as others have recently, that there is a larger picture of how then-Cardinal Ratzinger handled the issue of clergy sexual abuse.
Robert George Defends Glenn Beck (sort of, or so it seems to me), and mocks The New York Times
From Mirror of Justice:
And here’s the response:
It does strike me that the constant wining by conservatives about the New York Times is one of their least appealing habits.
And speaking of James Martin, S.J., check out his blog post over on America title It’s Not About the Media.
FWIW, here’s my perspective on this. The titillation factor in the original story – the reason the paper has given it the play it has – surely was the alleged (and now pretty well debunked) involvement of the Holy Father in covering up abuse by this abuser in Milwaukee.
For the large cohort of people here who believe that the biggest gap in church governance is calling bishops to account, this episode is not good news. The Times tried but clearly has failed to implicate the head of the college of bishops in the sex abuse scandal. Any subsequent allegation or story, regardless of its circumstances, that the Times tries to bring forward, will now be greeted by skepticism and suspicion by church conservatives who will see it as just one more example of overreaching by a news outlet that is out to get the church.
David
The only thing that was “false” was that he indicated the Times quoted him. Even that isn’t clear since he said, “the NYT, AP and others”, and the AP clearly did attribute quotes to him and the NYT clearly had that story on their website. That hardly makes his entire essay a myth. Would that the NYT applied that kind of standard to itself – a single error makes the entire story false – we wouldn’t have this conversation.
But what say you about his point that no one in the media even bothered to contact him, when he was the actual prosecuter of the case? What about the point that the Times says “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys”? Is that even remotely accurate? The case was brought to attention of the Vatican 25 months before the priest died, a case was initiated against him, a prosecutor was appointed, there were significant legal issues related to the statute of limitations, the accused is sick, the process is delayed, he dies while charges are still pending prior to formally stopping the process. In fact, the Vatican, and the pope, certainly had nothing to do with abating the procedure. That was done by the diocese, probably because the man was dying. Does that sound like they “declined” anything? What about the clear implication that the pope personally knew about and approved all of the actions in the case? What evidence is there of that? Other than the address on a letter, all the references are to others in the CDF, and in all of those there is no indication that the pope was involved or inclined to not proceed against the man.
It does strike me that the constant wining by conservatives about the New York Times is one of their least appealing habits.
David, it may strike you that way, but Robby George is an extremely influential conservative thinker who deserves a great deal of attention. I know because I read it in the New York Times!
Sean, you have gone down a rabbit hole as far as I can tell. I’m not going to follow you there.
One question: Why would the Times contact Brundage when he was not part of the story? Should it have contacted all 200 children Murphy molested? The story was contained in the documents, and Laurie Goodstein’s story today reinforces again the thrust of the original piece, that the Vatican pushed for no action on Murphy. That is in the black and white documents.
No David, but it would have made sense, when criticizing the judicial process used, to talk to the man most responsible for implementing it and whose name is mentioned dozens of times in the documentation.
Where do you see that the Vatican “pushed” for inaction? Did they suggest looking at alternative ways to deal with it? Yes. Maybe the fact that the accused was dying, and the time and resources involved played into that. Who knows? The reality is that this priest would never have been defrocked because he died long before the process could have been completed. You have to be looking with a pretty distorted eye to read something sinister in these documents. In the same letter where they suggest that the diocese look for alternative pastoral treatment of the case, they also indicate that the interpretation that the case would be barred by a limitation period was mistaken, effectively giving the procedural green light.
Is it a rabbit hole to ask the question whether the very headline on the story – “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys” – is accurate given that the Vatican never “declined” to do anything? Is it a rabbit hole to ask whether the clear implication and purpose of the entire story, that the pope personally failed in this matter, is nothing more than conjecture?
Mollie
If that bothers you, just wait. There won’t be a NYT to complain about soon enough.
Sean… don’t hope that the NYT is going away. Carlos Slim is helping them out now that he doesn’t have to keep funding the Legionaires .. go figger that and come back..
“Sean, the NYT story today pretty well puts the Brundage myth to bed. He was not quoted in the Times, nor was anything attributed to him. It’s a patently false story that has of course made the rounds of the blogosphere. ”
David G. –
It seems to me that to say “X was quoted IN the Times” is not the same thing as saying “X was quoted BY the Times”. The first is a matter of “The Old Gray Lady said that he said. . .”, while the second is simply a matter of the Times saying “He said that . . ”
It is true that Brundage was not quoted BY the Times although it was quoted In the Times (in the AP text). In other words, both the Times and Brundage told the truth as they saw it, even though their expressions of the truth(s) might have been ambiguous. The Old Gray Lady did present what the AP said. so the attribution was not its own. And Brundage confused a quoted-in with a quoted-by leading him to say that the Times misquoted him. (Sometimes splitting hairs does get at truth.)
Sean, what is the “that” in your sentence? What “bothers” me? Besides your bad-faith contributions to this discussion, that is?
SIDEBAR:
I’m just reading some of the deposition of AB Weakland. If you want to see how important the influence of apparently trivial issues of language can be on great historical events, consider the text below: Weakland is telling how he himself went to the Vatican in the early 90s to ask for help with handling cases of abuse.
” I remember some of us were pushing for a more streamlined kind of way of treating these cases, which came in after 2002, but this is 10 years before that, and we unfortunately used the word, “an administrative tribunal,” which had the holy father furious because he said it’s the word that the communists had always used to subvert justice rather than to help justice. So he didn’t want anything to do with an administrative process that in any way would be unjust.””
From: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_06_05_Weakland_Rembert/#40
By the way, I read somewhere yesterday that Italy has recently been rocked by the case of a particularly horrid archbishop-abuser, and more Italian victims have been inspired to speak out because of it, It never ends. What will the Bishop of Rome do?
“In fact, the Vatican, and the pope, certainly had nothing to do with abating the procedure. That was done by the diocese, probably because the man was dying.”
Sean –
This is exactly what the Milwaukee people did not do — they still pressed for a trial even though the man was dying. In fact, when I read it I thought, “Hey, these guys are too much”. But I guess they knew the feelings of the abused better than I do.
Which brings us back to Fr. Imbelli’s old point — how far should forgiveness extend? Fr. Murphy had admitted 30 of the abuses many years before, but not even admitted the other 160 or so afterwards, and he was still denying his guilt at the very end.
Prudential judgments, prudential judgments.
My impression is that the guy died before anyone definitively decided whether or not to proceed with the trial. Is that not accurate?
Margaret posted a link to the chronology above. The relevant parts:
April 6 1998 Bertone wrote to the bishops in Wisconsin that there was not statute of limitations for this case, but “invited” them to consider a pastoral rather than judicial solution.
May 30, 1998 Bertone met with the bishops from Wisconsin and made it clear he “was not encouraging” further judicial action.
August 19 Weakland wrote to Bertone to say he had told his judicial vicar to abate the process. (Brundage, the vicar, denies having been told)
August 21 Murphy died, probably before any of what Weakland outlined could be done.
Is “inviting” and “not encouraging” the same as putting a stop to the action? Yes and no — it was an invitation that could not be refused, but still just an invitation.. Did Murphy die before the judicial process was abated? Yes and no — after the bishop had decided the matter, but possibly before anything was done.
People can argue over whether these are clear yesses, or clear nos, or something inbetween, though I do not know why they would.
My impression is that the guy died before anyone definitively decided whether or not to proceed with the trial. Is that not accurate?
Jim,
Apparently not. Weakland wrote to Bertone saying he had ordered the trial “formally abated.” Whether he gave the order or not is in question, but given that Murphy died two days later, what actually happened about the final order is in doubt. But the fact that Weakland said he had already done it surely indicates the decision was made.
And I just found this in a Milwaukee news source quoting Weakland:
Clearly this indicates that Weakland wanted to continue with the trial but Bertone and others told him not to. Whether or not he could have defied them, I don’t know, but it seems very clear that “Rome” did not want the trial to proceed. And that is what is at issue here — whether or not the Vatican wanted Murphy tried and defrocked.
From an old (November 20, 2008) story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
That’s rich. Weakland sat on the problem for what – five years or more – before bringing it to the Vatican, and they “dragged on” because they didn’t solve the problem in 2.
Sorry, I understand Weakland was one of the “good guys” and the pope was one of the “bad guys” but who is more culpable for the delay in this case.
Ann, my point is that the NYT never quoted Brundage until today’s story, April 1. They never used the AP text, never cited him in any way. So I’m not sure what they need to correct. His name never appeared in the newspaper.
Sorry, David. It was my misunderstanding, that his name did appear in an AP feed in the Times.
See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal
I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories but I can’t resist wondering if this has something to do with the impending Vatican judgment on the Legionaries of Christ.
A detail in Jason Berry’s opinion piece on the current scandals caught my eye: Carlos Slim, the world’s richest man who lent $250 million to the NYT, was a major benefactor of the Legion.
Also see: http://www.sectas.org/wealthy_kingdom.html
On the other hand, Sandro Magister says the bishops who conducted the apostolic visitation among the Legionaries are about to present their findings later this month to the Vatican, which is expected to name an external commissioner “endowed with full powers.”
He also notes that the Legion’s worldwide assets are said to be worth 25 billion euros.
Could this NYT series be the Mexicans way of telling those Italians at the Vatican, and the
Bavarian on the papal throne, to take it easy?
Also see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/new-york-times-silent-on_n_471230.html
Just a thought.