Brundage & Murphy, Redux. (UPDATED)
Over at America‘s In All Things blog, Michael Sean Winters wonders how the Catholic Church can defend itself without being defensive. He begins by expressing gratitude for the work of the secular media in exposing the sexual-abuse scandal. Then the other hand comes out:
Nobody in the press, not even the New York Times, gets a pass for shoddy reporting. We now know that the priest who served as judicial vicar in Milwaukee in 1996, who was quoted in the story no less, was never even contacted by the reporters. He said yesterday that one of the documents attributed to him is not, in fact, his handwriting and he pointed to several factual inaccuracies in the story.
Actually, no. While it’s true that Fr. Brundage wasn’t contacted for the Times story (his boss, Rembert Weakland was, and he spoke to the Times on the record), his description of the supposed transgressions of the Times was mistaken. (Update: Winters has apologized for his error here.) According to Brundage:
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.
In fact, Brundage was not quoted in the Times. (Apparently, as reported by Laurie Goodstein today in an important follow-up to her original article on Murphy, Brundage saw an AP story temporarily posted on the Times Web site that misquoted him and he mistakenly believed the Times had made the error.) Brundage is referring to a document posted by the Times for all to see. Look at that document. You’ll see Brundage’s name at the top of all three pages. You’ll see the singular possessive used to describe a decision only someone with diocesan authority could make. And at the end, the signature: a cross and initials. The signature of a bishop.
There is no “problem” with that document. The problem is with Brundage’s understanding of the document. Did he go back and read it before claiming that he had been misquoted by the Times, the AP, and “those that utilized those resources,” before complaining that he was “never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me”? Wouldn’t someone who regularly worked with and corresponded with bishops know what a bishop’s signature looks like? Why would he believe the document was a letter to him?–his name is scrawled at the top of every page. There is no greeting. No salutation. Could it be more obvious that the three pages are notes from a conversation he had with a bishop? (Fr. Brundage did not respond to my queries about the Murphy case, which I sent on Monday morning.)
Would the original Times story have been stronger had he been contacted? His column certainly provides helpful context. But given his confusion about this document, I have my doubts.
Update: For more on Brundage’s questionable memory about his role in the Murphy case, read this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.
The canon judge who said he was never told to end the Catholic church trial of a priest accused of molesting as many as 200 deaf boys appears to have drafted the 1998 letter sent by then-Archbishop Rembert Weakland to a Vatican official outlining those plans, according to a document obtained by the Journal Sentinel.
Can the Church ever defend itself wiothout being defensive?
There’s a wnderful piece by Justice Anne Burke (speakin gat St. Xavier University) -see Bishop acvcountabilityu yesterday.
The brunt of the lecture is that what the Churcnh needs now is the truth -a truth she found hard to wring from our hierarchs when she headed the National Review Board.
On the other hand, USCCB is coming to the side of BXVI with a staement by Cardinal George -defensiveness?
Does the crdinal also have an agenda???
I am sure both the Catholic Church and the New York Times enjoy healthy levels of institutional pomposity. The difference is that if the NYT discovers it has made an error, it will be corrected the next day and the correction will be based on the evidence that it has itself sought out.
Brundage is world famous now, as Google News makes clear.
Here’s what he said on Vatican Radio yesterday:
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=368736
“I have to admit to being a little bit outraged, particularly by the New York Times and the Associated Press. In the online version of the NYT, they felt free to quote me from a document that they got off the internet – and I finally found the document, and I looked at the document and the quotes that were supposedly from me, and the handwriting was beautiful. My handwriting is awful. In fact, it’s hard to even read my handwriting – and so I was a bit outraged that they would not have had the journalistic sense to at least try to contact the source of a quote like that. They also are well aware, having the case file in hand, of my role in the case, and it was just unbelievable to me, given the role that I had, that nobody had even attempted to contact me.”
Woah, woah, woah, let me get this straight. Laurie Goodstein is of the opinion that the Times is not at fault for misquoting a priest on their website, because the article was from the Associated Press, and merely appeared ON THE TIMES WEBSITE?? Based on all my years in the business, this cavalier attitude toward fair, balanced and accurate reporting sets a new journalistic low.
That is not what Goodstein wrote. You have a bad habit of putting words in the mouths of people you disagree with. Stop.
What business are you in? How many years have you been in it?
I bet Mark doesn’t make his living criticizing the Vatican. Is that a grain of salt we ought to be taking when hearing some of the defenses of the Grey Lady?
Grant
Frankly, Goodstein’s articles are loaded with spin.
For example, sha says, in yesterday’s paper:
“But Archbishop Bertone suggested that given Father Murphy’s letter asking for leniency, Bishop Fliss should employ “pastoral measures” instead of a trial.”
When what Bishop Bertone actually said was before deciding what course of action to take they consider Murphy’s request for leniency and:
“give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.”
At best this is a facile reading of the document, and more likely a biased one. As someone who has dealt with hundreds of disciplinary and judicial actions, it is common to remind the decision maker that he needs to “give careful consideration” to leniency or mercy, even when you don’t think it is a good idea. Particularly, as is the case here, the accused has presented a requerst that the decision maker hasn’t seen. What is clear from the letter is that the Vatican is giving the diocese the green light to proceed, and that the decision is theirs. The language regarding canon 1341 isn’t even precatory let alone some kind of direction to stop the proceeding.
Sean: allow me to reiterate how little I appreciate your constantly aggrieved tone and your persistently snide remarks about those who disagree with you.
Fr. Brundage, the subject of this post, told Laurie Goodstein that the documents show that the CDF encouraged Milwaukee to halt the trial.
Based on all my years in the business, this cavalier attitude toward fair, balanced and accurate reporting sets a new journalistic low.
Mark Proska:
Do you really believe it is the responsibility of a newspaper that runs a wire service stories to verify the quotes in them???
Grant
It isn’t supposed to be snide – let me be more direct.
Many of those who are defending the NYT make their livings by being critical of the Vatican. That is how they get money, that is the audience they speak to. One can question the fairness of their positin based on the fact that they have a financial interest. They repeatedly do the same to others. You did it yourself in discussing the health care debate. So when you go with the “What business are you in?” routine it seems only fair to point out the business that you and others are in.
As for the article, the whole point was that the Vatican was somehow squelching the trial and covering up. They were clearly leaving the decision up to the diocese regardless of what was “suggested.” Moreover, one has to assume the motive was a cover-up since that’s no where to be found in the documents. Given that the case was already pretty public isn’t a more reasonable explanation that the they were concerned that the time, resources and attention of the diocese were better spent on something other than prosecuting a dying man? I don’t agree with this reason and neither did the diocese initially, but it makes more sense than a cover-up. The other point they werer trying to get accross is that the pope was somehow personally involved, and there isn’t a shred of evidence of that.
Related to the broader topic:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/kerry_robinson/2010/04/a_time_for_prophetic_leadership_and_accountability.html
So Mark Proska, are you finally going to come out from hiding? Or are you going to keep criticizing others in your “business” without identifying yourself? This is absurd.
Sean,
Re: As for the article, the whole point was that the Vatican was somehow squelching the trial and covering up. They were clearly leaving the decision up to the diocese regardless of what was “suggested.”
In fact, the Vatican did squelch the trial at the May 30, 1998 CDF meeting. See my analysis of the minutes at
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/father-brundage-is-wrong.html#more
and
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2705&comment=1&success=1#editcomments
Grant–
This is what Goodstein wrote:
“He [Father Brundage] 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.”
I believe my characterization of what Ms. Goodstein wrote is fair, balanced and accurate, but people can decide for themselves. I have no experience in the journalism business, which was my point (as someone noted previously, irony on blogs can be dangerous). Any idiot could see how pathetic this retraction was. Certainly this idiot could.
The bottom line irony is that they are Brundage’s words anyway, unless Bishop Sklba is a poor notetaker. Brundage acknowledges the syntax and content are like his anyway, and Sklba wrote Brundage’s name prominently across the top of the page.
Much ado about nothing by Brundage. Well, he certainly has not missed his 15 minutes of fame if he felt slighted in the first round.
David N–
I do expect a news publication to take responsibility for what it publishes, and if it publishes something inaccurate (regardless of whether it came from one of its own reporters or some other source it trusted enough to publish), it should issue a formal retraction, and apologize to the person misquoted and to readers. Perhaps those more familiar with journalism standards might find that an unreasonably high expectation, but I think it’s simply common courtesy.
And feel free to call me Mark P–no need for formalities between fellow travellers.
Mark Proska: The AP story was not published in the Times. It ran as part of the same wire feed onto its site that every other major newspaper has. By your standard, Commonweal should issue a formal retraction and apology for having allowed folks to post Brundage’s rebuttal, which was inaccurate. The responsibility rests with the AP.
Oh, and still sniping without revealing your position? A genuine man of conviction. Nice.
Sorry, folks, but I am more puzzled than ever, and not helped by the emotivism here. What exactly is Ratzinger’s alleged crime in the Murphy case? What is the proof that he committed the crime? Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens and the increasingly sloppy Maureen Down have dumped so much inaccuracy on us, never apologizing for their mistakes, that only a small inner circle of cognoscenti can have any idea of what is factually known. In fact, it rather looks as if the Murphy affair has set the media off on a wild goose chase that is a blessing to the embattled Vatican. Levada came out swinging and confident as does Ratzinger’s stap pupil Vincent Twomey in today’s Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0402/1224267548333.html
The Pope should not be a Monarch or an Emperor, but it is still rather impressive to see his Praetorian Guard swing into action so effectively while the hubristic New York Times bites the dust.
Dowd, I meant.
Star pupil, I meant! Has Vincent’s account been undercut by more recent details? The trouble with all these stories is that the details keep changing, so that an attack or defense built on one set of premises may have to be corrected the very next moment.
The folly of rushing to judgment on matters that could keep a court of law puzzled for months should be apparent. And emotive aggression does not help at all.
The Murphy scandal is a damp squib. But there are plenty more: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/04/moreno-struggled-to-defrock-2-priests.html
David G–
FYI, at 6:18 pm ET this evening, the NYT website acknowledged the error in the AP report they carried. If you read it you’ll see it’s still rather weak, but better late than never. Please let’s focus on the issues–I don’t want us to be mutual near occasions of sin.
Mark P: Yes, read it carefully. It’s an ASSOCIATED PRESS correction!
All your years in the biz and you still can’t read…
So are you going to come out from hiding and tell us who you are?
David G—
It seems we’re talking past each other. The only way I can see your position making any sense is if the NYT printed, at the bottom of every AP wire story it carries, the following:
“WARNING!!! We take no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy of the report in our publication that you’ve just spent your valuable time reading. Have a nice day!”
Absent that, they are responsible for the news outlets they deem appropriate to carry on their venues.
We are really getting down to fine points when the debate over whether the Times is biased comes down to whether it should be editing wire copy more carefully for its Website.
The way it works (based on my years as an AP reporter) is that the AP edits its own articles carefully and that the member newspapers of this cooperative know this and respect the AP’s accuracy. A top-quality newspaper like The Times will look over wire stories more carefully than most and will even call the AP with questions occasionally, but the AP is responsible for getting the facts straight (which it usually does very well). Even the Times relies on this.
I would imagine that many news organizations ran with the mistaken AP story. I can say from experience that it’s no fun to be an AP reporter who makes a mistake on a national story – the correction runs on the wire to just about every newsroom in the country.
Interesting details here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal
There are a number of interesting tidbits in the documents. Bishop Sklba’s secretary, Rita Tesar, was also secretary to St. John’s school. Perhaps it is her handwriting? Otherwise, why have Sklba’s initials at the bottom of the page, except to say he read the notes and OKed them. Having Brundage’s name on the top of each page, last name first, is a filing device, isn’t it? In other words, somebody wrote Brundage’s name, not to give him the notes, but to file them in his file (perhaps because he was the judge of the case), is my guess. Another curious tidbit: several pages are labeled “redacted.” Tell me, where does this term come from? Has there ever been a secular office that uses this term? It’s used in biblical criticism. (Sklba is a scripture scholar.) Who says the funeral Mass, with full honor to Murphy? Sklba. Brundage doesn’t know why he never got Weakland’s letter saying he should halt the trial. Where did the letter go? I don’t believe Weakland didn’t send it out of concern for Brundage’s feelings. That’s just not in character. But I could believe that Sklba, who lived in the same rectory with Brundage, didn’t deliver it. Sklba is right in the middle of this story, it seems to me. I suspect if you knew what was going on with Sklba, you’d know what happened.
I don’t really understand if this thread is about journalism, or about Brundage, or about the Murphy case, or what. But from where I sit, this whole thing is a red herring innocently dragged across the path of the story by Brundage, who flew off the handle when he read something attributed to him in the AP story that he didn’t actually say.
Ah, the little grey cells. Rita, your analysis of the note is worthy of Hercule Poirot :-) Yes, I think part of the interest in this mess it that it is a mystery about guilt that begs to be solved with the world put back in order at the end
Well, I intended the thread to be about Brundage and his column. It would be interesting to know why it took him two years to interview twelve victims.
Ann, LOL! You’ve found me out. I’m a big fan of Agatha Christie. And yes, I do wish for the world to be put back in order again at the end of this drama.
Thanks, Grant, for the reorientation of the subject of this thread. I think your question is a good one. Why did it take so many years? This seems opaque to me too.
Rita, “redaction” was a major issue in the Watergate investigation “While Nixon continued to refuse to turn over actual tapes, he agreed to release transcripts of a large number of them; Nixon cited the fact that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes.” Generally it is used to delete personal information, like names, to protect the privacy of those not targeted. In church documents on sexual abuse, redaction is used to blot out the names of victims before a document is published, as an example.
The Brundage incident has now been settled. I was shocked to hear that Brundage was a> not involved in the decision to abate the case; b> would have appealed it, against the wishes of his archbishop. We now know that the letter sent to Bertone by Weakland was drafted by Brundage, showing he was consulted in the making of the decision (though he may not have heard what final decision was made). Whether he would have contested that decision is another matter, but hypothetical and only marginally important. It shows the process was ended by the death of Murphy, not by Vatican intervention.
Jim McK, I was not familiar with the legal use of that term. Thanks for the info. Maybe the Alaskan winter has slowed Brundage’s mental processes. His words, against the newly disclosed facts, now appear as arrogant as any of the other defenders of the status quo.
I was impressed with Cardinal Schoenborn’s comments in a penance service at the cathedral in Vienna. Compare his words below with the self-pity and blaming we hear from prelates, and priests such as Brundage, in the U.S. and in Italy. Schoenborn admits to the initial feeling of being pounced upon, but HE REJECTS IT because he sees that SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT IS GOING ON HERE. Would that more of our church leaders could do the same:
“When the Victims Speak, God Speaks to Us”
In this hour, preachy words are beside the point. They could be not only uncomfortable, but even injurious. Keeping silent would be appropriate. Not that silence which happens all too often: the silence of covering up, of silencing another, the silence of not being able to speak up. It would have to be the silence of the friends of Job, who simply fell silent and sat in silence before the suffering of their friend.
Thanks, that you have broken the silence. Thanks, that victims have begun to trust themselves enough to speak. Oftentimes it takes a long time to break out of the spiral of silence. Much has broken open. There is less looking the other way. But much remains to be done.
I confess that I often have the feeling of injustice these days. Why is it mostly the Church which is pilloried? Isn’t there abuse elsewhere? Is anyone looking into that? Is it being dealt with? And then I am easily tempted to say: Well, the media just plain don’t like the Church! Maybe there’s even a conspiracy against the Church?
But then I feel in my heart – no, that’s not it. Even if that were the case, the mirror which is held up to us reflects something which makes abuse in the Church especially serious: it defiles the holy name of God. It closes off, often for an entire lifetime, access to the God who is with us and makes us free. Abuse which is sexual or physically violent or both, when it is committed by a church representative, by a priest or a professed religious, can become a “poisoning of God.” The people who are supposed to bring the nearness and the name of God become destroyers of the relationship to God. It is this which makes abuse in the Church even worse. Thus, the words of “holy anger” which Jesus uttered are so terrifyingly serious: “To the person who causes scandal to one of these little ones, it would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea.”
… This is a painful experience for the Church. But what is this pain in comparison to the pain of the victims whom we have not seen or listened to! When the victims now speak, then God speaks to us, to his Church, in order to shake it up and purify it; then, through the victims, that God speaks to us who said to Moses: “I have diligently taken heed of you and have seen what they have done to you.”
The full text translated into English can be found here:
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/03/31/when-the-victims-speak-god-speaks-to-us/
In the original German, it’s here:
http://www.kath-kirche.at/content/site/minidossiers/article/53660.html
Still wondering why Brundage is in Alaska. Do canon judges get moved around from one hot/cold spot to another? In the 1990 Official Catholic Directory, he’s listed as “On special assignment”.
Gerelyn
Thanks for the text, Rita. Schoenborn as papabile is looking more and more able. But JP II also looked very good at first. Sigh. (I seem to be looking for a good king too.)
This scandal is making me more and more cynical. I wonder what it is doing to the Catholic children who were not abused, but who hear about this garbage and are old enough to understand some of it. Has anyone heard any reactions from them? How are parents and grandparents handling this?
Gerelyn, I don’t have any inside information, but I was attending the church in Milwaukee where Tom Brundage was pastor when he made his announcement that he was going to Alaska. It was right before the appointment of a new Archbishop, if I remember correctly. A background was in place. He used to go to Alaska often, for weeks at a time, prior to this move. It seems he spent every vacation there, and often spoke of his trips in his homilies, with enthusiasm and affection. He presented it to the parish that he felt called to minister in Alaska. Right now, I am tending to take anything he says or said with a grain of salt. And of course I’ve known priests in other dioceses to feel “called to the missions” when they are about to get a new ordinary… so, who knows? But that was the story at the time. Some people do get a kick out of flying small planes onto icebergs, and the church out there is very rural and ecumenical and mission-oriented, I’m told. Maybe Milwaukee wasn’t cold enough for him. :) Your 1990 directory would predate all this, however, so I don’t know anything about that.
Thanks, Rita!
It’s been an interesting tempest in a teapot.