A long article in today’s New York Times reports on some of the Vatican’s early responses to the sex-abuse crisis. The facts in the story, such as they are, appear good to know. But what the article tries to draw from it all . . .
In fact, of Pope Benedict’s career as Cardinal Ratzinger, reporters Laurie Goodstein and David M. Halbfinger announce the strong conclusion: “The future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction.”
And how do they get there? Something along these lines:
Implied verdict #1: The irresponsible cardinal was thinking about theology when he should have been meeting with canon lawyers 24/7 to perfect procedures for prosecuting abusers.
Evidence for verdict #1: Although the sex abuse scandal made big news with revelations in Boston in 2002, there were plenty of early warning signs. And what was then Cardinal Ratzinger doing with his time? Not sorting out the legal procedures for dealing with disciplining accused sex abusers, but instead formulating theological reasons for rejecting the doctrinal distortions of liberation theology. Or, as Goodstein and Halbfinger mockingly report, examining the credibility of claims about apparitions of the Virgin Mary.
Implied verdict #2: Ratzinger culpably hindered the efforts by bishops to deal with the sex abuse scandal—and did so out of an obviously irrelevant concern about ecclesiology.
Evidence for verdict #2: In the United States, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken the most forceful position in disciplining sex abusers. As cardinal, however, Ratzinger spoke against the pretension of national bishop conferences, saying that they have “no theological basis” and “do not belong to the structure of the church.” Individual bishops, Ratzinger argued, function as the legitimate ecclesial authority in relation to Rome, not national conferences.
Implied verdict #3: Ratzinger was part of a cabal of leaders in Rome who blocked reform—and did so out of a tender, irrational, and irresponsible regard for legalistic protections of accused clergy.
Evidence for verdict #3: It turns out the Roman authorities tend to assume innocence rather than guilt, giving the benefit of doubt to accused priests. The 1983 code of canon law established a five-year statute of limitations for accusations against clergy. (John Paul II subsequently extended it to ten years after the victim’s eighteenth birthday.) Moreover, the Vatican resisted efforts to substitute administrative judgment for a full ecclesiastical trial for defrocking clerics accused of sexual abuse.
Implied verdict #4: Ratzinger should have known about his jurisdictional authority—and this in spite of the fact that, as Goodstein and Halbfinger report, pretty much everybody in Rome was unaware of obscure instructions on the point.
Evidence for verdict #4: Way back in 1922, papal instructions invested the Holy Office (Ratzinger’s domain as cardinal, retitled the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after Vatican II) with authority to deal directly with sexual abuse cases involving priests. This instruction was acknowledged by Ratziner only in 2001.
Implied verdict #5: His head was in the theological clouds. Anybody with a scintilla of true Christian leadership would have remade himself as a canon lawyer as soon as he hears the news of the first sex-abuse scandal.
Evidence for verdict #5: A meeting was held in 2000, to address bureaucratic and canonical changes, but Ratzinger attended only intermittently and didn’t say much.
I could go on, but it would be tedious. It’s almost always tedious to refute tendentious reporting.
In any event the article ends up refuting itself, because the various bishops closely involved in the Vatican’s admittedly inadequate responses to the sexual-abuse crisis uniformly praise Ratzinger. Australia’s Archbishop Wilson is typical. After the 2000 meeting, he reported: “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
Move forward. Sigh. The Catholic Church rarely hurries, so the moving forward accomplished after 2000 has often turned out to be slow, cumbersome, and tone deaf. There is much, much, to criticize, and there are important questions to ask.
Why did (and do) some church officials retreat into clichés, interpreting critical reporting of the sexual abuse scandals as part of a larger secular attack on the Church?
Has the Church wrongly presumed the innocence of accused priests in its canonical procedures? Or is our current frenzy over sexual abuse distorting our larger sense of justice?
Do we want the Vatican to be a more efficient bureaucratic machine, clearer in its procedures and more aggressive in its use of authority? Or is the relatively cumbersome reality of Vatican authority a source of a desirable ecclesiastical pluralism and liberty?
Do we want Church leaders expert in canon law or learned in theology? Do we want efficient bureaucrats who know about all the obscure rules and instructions, or inspired men of faith?
Unfortunately, the mandarins at the New York Times seem incapable of entertaining these sorts of questions. They are more interested in a hatchet job for which, in truth, they couldn’t find enough timber on which to chop away.
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:36 pm
Implied verdict # 6:
The NYT focuses on an obscure 1922 text to distract from the grievous sufferings of Mexicans today.
Evidence for verdict # 6:
The NYT solicits the aid of Mexican investor Carlos Slim for its own treasury when his money could better be given to suffering Mexicans, liberation theologians and Maciel victims.
July 2nd, 2010 | 3:55 pm
Move forward. Sigh. The Catholic Church rarely hurries, so the moving forward accomplished after 2000 has often turned out to be slow, cumbersome, and tone deaf.
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita…
July 2nd, 2010 | 4:11 pm
Patrick Molloy–Sharp comment. I hadn’t thought of it, but it’s obvious, isn’t it?
July 2nd, 2010 | 7:20 pm
The meaning of the partial and selected facts the Times reports is determined by the spin. The Times thinks the Church should operate like secular institutions it is familiar with and it has little real feel for the inner life of the Church.
All that said, though, the Church’s defenders seem to overlook the heinous nature of what repeatedly occurred, the response to which was so bureaucratic. Something was wrong inside a Church in which things like this could have occurred repeatedly for many years. The
Times wants to blame the current pope, but there were plenty of others to blame
The Church was already under attack from many quarters for its stand on moral issues. And it seemed that just at the critical moment–this.
I don’t think the Church can survive in its current form–ruled by prelates who still think they inhabit a Renaissance court. The situation is now so bad that only something drastic can restore the Church’s credibility. Maybe those Marian predictions Cardinal Ratzinger read about in the 1990s are coming true.
July 2nd, 2010 | 10:53 pm
In 2002, the New York Times published an obituary of Harry Hay, considered by virtually everyone as the founder of the modern gay rights movement: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/25/obituaries/25HAY.html?pagewanted=print
The Times mentions that his first homosexual experience occurred when he was 14, though the Times does not tell you that Hay’s suitor was an adult male, which is documented in some of the works cited by the Times in the obituary. Read the speech that Hay gave at NYU in 1983: http://www.nambla.org/nyu1983.htm, in which Hay says this:
“I’m telling you this story, and I’m saying it tonight, in memory of a man—all I can remember is that his name was Matt. And I send to all of you my love and deep affection for what you offer to the boys, in honor of this boy when he was fourteen, and when he needed to know best of all what only another gay man could show him and tell him.
I also would like to say at this point that it seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAMBLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.
So, again, as I said, my offering is not as a member of NAMBLA, but in memory of that fourteen-year-old boy who was handled by Matt so long ago. And in memorial to Matt, I offer you my love.”
The NY TIMES covered up Harry Hay’s history of being a victim of, and a defender of, child molestation. How deeply sick that it has the consummate gall to go after a man, Joseph Ratzinger, who has tried his best to rid the church of the Harry Hays, whether they be victims or perpetrators. The NY TIMES attacks Ratzinger and praises Hay. The NY TIMES does not give a damn about children. It just hates the Church.
July 3rd, 2010 | 9:18 am
If I lived in a neighborhood where everyone beat their wife and children I would have a problem if they all decided to spend their time condemning me for the same behavior. Well I do live in such a neighborhood it is called the world.
In the world there is slavery, a thriving sex trade involving involuntary servitude, massive oppression of citizens including but not limited to forced abortions, sexual mutilation of young woman and murder. On the internet the money is in sex, all types and in all places. In the popular press sex and sensuality sells, to anyone. In the last 40 years we are short approx. 50,000,000 people due to abortion. One in four Americans have an std. In every venue one can think of child and teenage abuse, sexual and otherwise, is present in significant numbers. There have been study after study that indict public school teachers, ministers, Rabbis, coaches, therapists, foster care providers, neighbors and family members, etc.. The percentages exceed the Churches. If the Churches number of victims was one this would be one to many and we should do our best to see that there is not even one. This will not happen given the insidious nature of evil but we must try. I understand the outrage of Catholics particularly those that do not understand the nature of man and the voraciousness of evil. It is the selective outrage of the glasshouse people that I find most curious. Do they hold the church to a higher standard, is it the appearance of hypocracy that enrages them so, are they truly ignorant of the state of their own house? If tomorrow the Church were gone( an impossibility) would the problem go away?
July 3rd, 2010 | 7:59 pm
The article did seem more comment piece or essay than straight news reporting. But before you shoot the messenger, I’ll note that a very touching and positive portrayal of a soon to retire Bronx priest recently graced their pages. It was as good as anything a Catholic diocesan newspaper would produce. The St. Vincent hospital closing saga was also covered in detail with praise for its presence and long service to its neighborhood. Some of you, as conservatives have a distaste for all things NYT and are not objective judges of its partiality.
July 4th, 2010 | 6:48 am
Do we want our Pope to be perfect? Yes we do.
July 4th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
Do we want our Pope to be perfect? Yes we do.
Then you are doomed to disappointment, Brettongarcia.
Part of growing up is learning that your parents aren’t people with imperfecttions. There are a lot of people – Catholic and non-Catholic alike – who need to grow up.
July 5th, 2010 | 10:51 am
“Some of you, as conservatives have a distaste for all things NYT and are not objective judges of its partiality.”
Right, and Playboy has some really good writing in it.
July 9th, 2010 | 5:28 pm
[...] examined, with the analytical skill of a biblical scholar (a good biblical scholar), the bias of the New York Times‘ latest coverage of Benedict and his role in the sex abuse scandal. The title How Do You Spell Tendentious? gives you the idea …. [...]
July 13th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
[...] a recent posting I parsed the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact