A sign that the New York Times will not be halting its seemingly daily effort to link the Vatican to the priest scandals: today’s article on Cardinal Levada, written by Michael Luo, who has been covering economics and the recession for the newspaper.
In the middle of a dangerous economic moment, with the European mess threatening another turn of the recession screw, the New York Times takes a reporter off the economics beat and moves him onto the effort to link current Vatican officials to the old abuse cases. Yes, a sign: They will not let this go.
The article itself was not uninformative, but in any other context, the paper would not be pushing out a story that is this old, breaks no new ground, and ends up unable to decide whether he’s the good guy or the bad guy in the story:
Cardinal Levada was ahead of other church officials on the issue at times, setting up an independent committee to vet abuse cases and calling for greater accountability from church leaders.
But an examination of his record, pieced together from interviews and a review of thousands of pages of court documents, show that he generally followed the prevailing practice of the church hierarchy, often giving accused priests the benefit of the doubt and being reluctant to remove them from ministry.
The story clearly wants to link Levada to Benedict, and the very last sentence is the ominous “Less than two years later, Pope Benedict XVI brought his old friend to Rome.” Which means . . . well, what, exactly? That Levada’s good actions reflect on the pope? That his bad actions reflect on the pope?
The real point of the story, I suspect, is simply to keep the acid rain falling on the Church, a constant drizzle that wears away the stones—and, in the end, creates the atmosphere in which Rome can be made a defendant in the lawsuits over American abuse.
May 6th, 2010 | 1:52 pm
I thought no one would ever speak this way. Thank you !
I can say, “YOU ARE ANSWERED PRAYER!. ”
I have been blogging for ten years about the RCC and the Crimes Against Humanity that they have committed against our children and marginalized adults.
Iam , along with my husband, an ex RCC. We left in 2001, on our 50th Wedding Anniversary. Right after a Jesuit priest said mass for our small group, on our boat where we summered from the AZ. heat, in San Diego.
I have prayed for one person or two, to do an AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, COMMITTED by THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
They should lose their NON-PROFIT status. They should be taken to the WORLD COURT AND FOUND GUILTY OF THE WORST EVIL SINCE THE BEGININNG OF CHRISTIANITY.
This has been going on since then. They know what they are doing and why and will never change. Thanks to THE INTERNET, there is Instant Communication and they can no longer get away with it.
I have so much to tell you and I cannot write this type of book but I’d be glad to open up all that I know, which is alot, to some one who will let the average RC know what is going on. They have been so generationally brainwashed, they are still in denial. They’ve believed the lies for so long, they don’t know how to think for themeslves. Please feel free to e mail me.
May 6th, 2010 | 1:57 pm
I applaud the New York Times for continuing to report responsibly on the scandal. I’m embarrassed by the attempts of some Catholics to smear the paper. Thank God the NYT will not let itself be intimidated by any church, politician, political party or special interest group. I hope Cardinal Levada gives us the truth about his role in all this. Stop attacking the press. Seek for the truth about this scandal.
May 6th, 2010 | 2:16 pm
I also applaud the NY Times. Keep up the view into the Vatican cover-up. The truth will set them free.
May 6th, 2010 | 2:17 pm
The New York Times and its reporters must be held accountable for any abuse they perpetrate towards others in their reporting. Not to hold them accountable is a form of secular clericalism. They are not above critique just as the Church isn’t above it either. Report the truth, but report the bias, the ax to grind and the secularism that the New York Times wishes to support and the Catholic Church opposes. And when reporters get it so wrong as Laurie Goodstein does, fire them!
May 6th, 2010 | 2:27 pm
Mr. Bottum: thou dost protesteth too much! Your protests should be aimed not at the NY Times but at the Catholic Church and its officials who have committed monumental and perhaps fatal errors in handling clergy sexual abuse. A massive cleansing of the Church must take place, and the NY Times is responsibly reporting about such.
May 6th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
This is the argument from perfection. Cardinal Levada was not perfect by some current definition of perfection and so his record is “mixed”. So much conspiracy theory from The Gray Lady. It’s a shame.
May 6th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
Yeah, real man of God:
http://blogs.alternet.org/cityofangelsonalternet/2010/05/05/cardinal-can%E2%80%99t-quote-scripture-or-his-own-archdiocese-policy-on-pedophile-priests-more-excerpts-from-deposition-of-william-levada/
May 6th, 2010 | 3:57 pm
The leadership of our church need to have their feet held to the fire until they acknowledge openly and without blurring the lines, their complicity in this terrible mess. Cardinal Levada protected offenders.
May 6th, 2010 | 5:27 pm
Mr. Melendez thinks criticism of Church officials is “perfectionism.” So let’s go back to the good old days: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
But how could these things have happened in the Catholic Church? The scale and number of abuses, reaching even into the Vatican, call for a radical examination of the institution. I’m beginning to see what Catholic liberals were agitated about.
May 6th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
This has become a personality tic of Mr. Bottum’s. It seems utterly reflexive and devoid of thoughtfulness.
Perhaps he’d be willing to offer an account of when it’s okay for the NYT or any other organization to report unflattering news about the Catholic Church.
And since First Things (especially Weigel and Neuhaus) thoroughly discredited themselves by being so terribly wrong about Fr. Maciel and about the early reporting on his crimes, perhaps Mr. Bottum might also deign to offer an account of why we should give a rip what he has to say about the current crisis. Aren’t conservatives supposed to believe in accountability?
May 6th, 2010 | 6:52 pm
There is nothing left for them to do but beg forgiveness for perpetrating fraud on the good people who have always paid their salaries, and the awful people who successfully tried to buy them. Then apologize for giving unto Ceasar ( themselves) what belongs to the Divine. Then speak publicly and often of the regret over the holes in their collective heads regarding everything concerning women and children. They need to willingly go off to jail, where they belong, every last one of them who enabled a pedophile priest, bishop or cardinal to molest children. Until these things, all of them, take place, they are all just whistlin’ dixie while shakin’ in their pumps..
May 6th, 2010 | 6:52 pm
Wow! You, JB, apparently have stepped on some very sensitive toes with your blasphemous commentary on the Holy New York Times. The self-righteous blindness of the previous posts makes one wonder if the Church could gain any charity or approval from the NYT mavens only by turning the lights and joining the Unitarians.
The tragedy of the on-going scandal is the thing in itself and the cover it has given to those who either hate the Church or would rebuild it in their own image.
As for the moral authority of the Times, does the name Walter Duranty ring a bell?
May 6th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
Mr. Collier says: “perhaps Mr. Bottum might also deign to offer an account of why we should give a rip what he has to say about the current crisis.”
Mr. Collier, why should we give a rip what you have to say either? You sound like a liberal.
Mr. Bottum is always interesting. One may not agree with him, but is that a reason to write him off? Get a grip.
May 6th, 2010 | 7:22 pm
Whew. Anybody who thinks I’m not stern with the Vatican about this hasn’t been reading what I have to say. But the topic is a fraught one, no doubt.
May 6th, 2010 | 7:23 pm
Wow, I didn’t know the New York Times made their own spam-bots.
May 6th, 2010 | 10:25 pm
Speaking as both a childhood sexual abuse victim and a conservative, I find myself more in sympathy with defenders of the NY Times than the Church.
The story on Levada puts the facts out there for all to judge. I’ve read it twice and don’t see a hatchet job. I watched his interview with PBS and couldn’t believe what he was saying about how they were just now learning about how much damage is done to victims, etc.
He very much looked like a man who had something to hide and I’m grateful that his feet are being held to the fire. He needs to be held accountable.
May 7th, 2010 | 9:16 am
To requote from above posts:
“how could these things have happened in the Catholic Church? The scale and number of abuses, reaching even into the Vatican, call for a radical examination of the institution. I’m beginning to see what Catholic liberals were agitated about.”
“since First Things (especially Weigel and Neuhaus) thoroughly discredited themselves by being so terribly wrong about Fr. Maciel and about the early reporting on his crimes, perhaps Mr. Bottum might also deign to offer an account of why we should give a rip what he has to say about the current crisis. Aren’t conservatives supposed to believe in accountability?”
“Scale and number of abuses.” “Terribly wrong…”
Rather damning.
The NYT could be a group of gay whores, and it would not make the church’s performance here much better. Levada is a professional manager, a lifetime bureaucrat. His answers are wildly unacceptable. We are not talking about a mid-level priest. If this is what is at the top, can you imagine what IS happening at the lower levels? And meanwhile, Weakland is still esteemed Bishop Emeritus in Milwaukee. Church discipline, protecting the faithful…. huh? Try imagining if it was your son abused, or deciding to follow a Bishop’s lead but lauding the gay lifestyle. Would you be as equally defensive of the victimized Levada?
May 7th, 2010 | 10:53 am
Hmmmm. Now that we’re preaching about the need for accountability, it seems the NYT ought to be held accountable for covering up the Holocaust. See Fischel, Jack. “Sins of Omission: How the New York Times didn’t report the Holocaust” Weekly Standard 4/11/05. Review of Laurel Leff, Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper (2005).
And where was the NYT during the 80s and 90s on the North American Man Boy Love Association?
May 7th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
I’m sorry, but after the all-hands-on-deck hatchet job the NYTimes pulled on Pope Benedict XVI, a man who has done more for these abuse victims than any member of the heirarchy under a climate of blatant hostility, I do not find myself sympathizing the least when they go after any other Catholic cleric.
Sure, the crisis was a bad thing. But how come we do not see the same crusading effort when a public school student is sodomized by his teacher? Abuse occurs in the American public school system at a higher rate than the Catholic Church, and teachers are also shuffled around, and yet there are no shadowy Times reporters haranguing superintendents just because the abused kids are not conveniently Catholic.
Cardinal Levada may not give off the good vibes, but the New York Times has proven to be no trustworthy arbiter of truth either. At the end of the day, the Pope trusts this bishop, so he may be there for a reason.
The Church is reforming in reaction to this crisis. While his PR may not be so good, the Pope has proven capable so far.
I can’t say the same about the Times.
May 7th, 2010 | 9:57 pm
Mr. Bottum, you have hit the nail on the head. Thanks for a great article. Mmmm, yes, Gloria, I am a very educated, informed and happy Catholic. I am most certainly not brainwashed. I can’t say the same for you …
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact