In reality, the scandal implicates left and right alike. The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. (Again and again, bishops relied on psychiatrists rather than common sense in deciding how to handle abusive clerics.) But it was the church’s conservative instincts ”” the insistence on institutional loyalty, obedience and the absolute authority of clerics ”” that allowed the abuse to spread unpunished.
What’s more, it was a conservative hierarchy’s bunker mentality that prevented the Vatican from reckoning with the scandal. In a characteristic moment in 2002, a prominent cardinal told a Spanish audience that “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign … to discredit the church….”
the crisis of authority endures. There has been some accountability for the abusers, but not nearly enough for the bishops who enabled them. And now the shadow of past sins threatens to engulf this papacy.
Popes do not resign. But a pope can clean house. And a pope can show contrition, on his own behalf and on behalf of an entire generation of bishops, for what was done and left undone in one of Catholicism’s darkest eras.
NYT trying to dig itself out of a hole. Benedict XVI has expressed contrition on many occasions, but by all means just keep digging.
Yes, NYT has blown it bigtime with this one. To paraphrase the psalm, “Zeal for Christian blood hath consumed me.”
All kinds of problems in Douthat’s article. To mention only one, how could Douthat quote the Spanish cardinal about a planned campaign in the U.S. press to discredit the church and somehow avoid mentioning the fact that his own “newspaper” has been caught in the very act of doing exactly that? Who needs to show contrition here? Anymore, if I see “Ross Douthat,” “Maureen Dowd,” “Laurie Goodstein” or “Rachel Donadio” in the byline, I stop reading. Informed opinions are one thing. Bigoted incompetence is altogether another matter.
The Spanish bishop was spot on.
The “Spanish bishop” was actually Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) speaking in Spain in 2002.
Douthat is right on –
The pope, as archbishop on Munich was responsible for his flock and his priests, to pass it on to a subordinate is wrong and shameful. Take out Benedicts name and put in Bishop Schori and everyone on this list would be condemning her for the same thing. Simply said, as archbishop is to have great power, he also had the responsibility.
The Spanish cardinal is half-right – the press is going after Christians but not as a planned campaign but as a reaction to the planned campaign of Christians to evangelize and proclaim a bold message that we are not living up to. We evangelize people and they expect sinlessness. We aren’t even close.
Simply said, if the Christian church has a bold vision for the world, the activities of many church leaders in responding to this abuse is an embarrassment.
Jackson,
Substitute Schori’s name, put her in the same timeline (of the growing awareness of the problem of sexual abuse of children everywhere in society), and assume that she had subsequently taken the same strong actions Benedict XVI took, and I, for one, would not condemn her w/ the same vehemence being directed against the Pope. Some (most?) readers of this list happen to love justice.
Why exactly do “people . . . expect sinlessness” from Christians? That’s not the message of the Christian gospel. If that’s what people expect they’re woefully ignorant about the claims of Christianity. That might be ok for the un-educated but is inexcusable for the educated in the West, especially if they’re religion reporters at the U.S.’s “newspaper of record.”
Speaking of which, are you willing to admit that the NYT’s standard of journalism concerning Fr. Murphy was, to say the least, un-professional?
Thanks – I agree (like Douthat) that the accusation and the elevation of the Fr. Murphy case to Rome was wrong and unprofessional. I think the Vatican did the right thing there.
But I do believe, to restate, that a archbishop or bishop is responsible for running the affairs of his diocese and that the arguments to date on whether the Pope as archbishop was not included on such grievous a situation is not acceptable. If its not acceptable today, is it acceptable in the past?
“Why exactly do “people . . . expect sinlessness†from Christians?”
Thats a good question. I think that its assumed that when people, like myself, say things…they expect people to live up to them. And we don’t. Thats what got Toyota, Tiger Woods and many politicians in trouble. If I am bold enough to step out and say something, I am expected to live by it. I don’t think thats too unreasonable.
Thanks for your feedback
Jackson,
The facts as we know them do suggest that then-Archbishop Ratzinger mis-handled the Munich case. (I choose the word “suggest” carefully.) Even if he had delegated the matter entirely and knew nothing about the re-assignment of the priest in question, as archbishop, he was ultimately responsible. But press reports in the mainstream media (even though its behavior is more fringe-extremist than mainstream where religion is concerned) have taken thin, incomplete evidence as established fact. Raising questions about then-Archbishop Ratzinger I would find helpful. Clamoring for his resignation, though, is insulting on the level of intelligence alone, not to mention justice and fairplay.
The Pope himself has pointed out that he is a sinner and errs in judgment. That is part of his claim. To hold him to any other standards is to regard Christianity as a form of magic. And it tends to keep many people in that same puerile mindset that often led to clergy sex abuse to begin with, that being the idea that a priest of bishop can do no wrong. They can and they do. Most of these journalists need to do two things: learn how to behave professionally, and outgrow their puerile expectations about people in positions of authority.
Jackson,
You are right. A bishop is responsible for his flock and any priest involved in sexual abuse needs to be defrocked and handed over to local authorities.
The only problem is many news agencies are placing this at the pope’s door. Not only are the NYT, AP and others giving us incomplete and biased journalism, they are not even checking their sources. Kendall posted a clear case of this yesterday. Click here to read yesterday’s article.
I may not be clear – my apologies – I (and Douthat) have no qualms with Pope Benedict’s actions on the Milwaukee case (Kendall’s link to Father Thomas T. Brundage piece only addresses that). The issue is what Benedict did when he was archbishop of Munich (not when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and handling the Milwaukee case).
To date, I have not heard any strong defense except to say, he was archbishop and his deputy was in charge-blame the deputy. This doesn’t work in the 1970’s or today. To be archbishop means your responsible. Or am I missing some key detail or in error? I am quite open to correction here 🙂
Jackson,
You’re correct about an Archbishop being ultimately responsible for what happens in his archdiocese. But this thread is (I think) about Douthat’s arrogance, frankly, in demanding contrition from the Pope when his own paper needs to show contrition for not checking the facts in the Milwaukee matter and for rushing to judgment before we have all the facts in the Munich matter.
As a matter of fact, Bishop Schori does preside (so to speak) over at least two bishops known to have protected child molesters. Granted, Bp. Bennison is in hot water, but it started when his Standing Committee got fed up with his financial missteps. Ramped up to Catholic scale, that’s 66 bishops.
But since we are all obsessed with the Catholic Church, let’s go ahead and look at the Munich situation. In the 70s, what happened in Munich wasn’t the unforgivable sin it is today. It probably wasn’t illegal (maybe still isn’t). In any case, what was done is what schools, families, and pretty much everyone else did. A lot still do, by the way.
The question we should be asking today is why this obsession with one act 40 years ago? Of course, I’m not saying that “everyone does it” (yes, that’s present tense) is a defense. I’m saying that the cultural hypocrisy is stunning. Two words: Roman Polanski. But what if the pope, like most leaders, did a bad thing? Does it invalidate the Catholic Faith? Is there no forgiveness in the world of the American media? One mistake and that’s it, you are cast out forever. At least if you are a Catholic. For us, there is no learning, no change, no forgiveness. And then, what’s the proper punishment for his being “responsible”, even if he didn’t know about it?
Wow, and I’m the guy who thinks the American bishops got off way too easy, implementing procedural gimmicks in lieu of real repentance and penance. Half of the bishops should have resigned and retired to monasteries to fast and pray.
Pope Benedict has done more to resolve this problem than anyone over the past nearly 10 years. In light of that, the attack on him is all the more fascinating, and raises, again, the question as to whether the real goal is the welfare of children.
Peggy Noonan weighs in. A good, thoughtful analysis.
A sympathetic Lutheran perspective on Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s entire career:
http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18
Peggy Noonan’s analysis is good. And she’s correct in stating that the press has actually been the Roman Catholic Church’s friend overall. But nuancing is needed. The same kind of institutional apathy she mentions regarding the Church can apply to the press as well. Who holds Douthat accountable?
Thanks – Agast writes..”But what if the pope, like most leaders, did a bad thing? Does it invalidate the Catholic Faith? Is there no forgiveness in the world of the American media? One mistake and that’s it, you are cast out forever. At least if you are a Catholic. For us, there is no learning, no change, no forgiveness. And then, what’s the proper punishment for his being “responsibleâ€, even if he didn’t know about it?”
I think what the media wants and what I would like is simply a apology from the pope that as archbishop on Munich he made a significant mistake.
As to date, the response from the Vatican has not been apologetic on Munich, it is defensive, and thus the press and Christians and non-Christians will knock on the Vatican door until its lives by its own words that people who sin should apologize.
Am I missing something?