(For important background on this which broke when we were taking a news break on the blog, please follow all the links here).
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed his “deep sorrow and regret” after saying the Catholic Church in Ireland had lost “all credibility”.
In Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said Archbishop Williams had spoken with him by phone explaining his “sadness” regarding some “unfortunate words” in his interview.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the ABC takes forever to throw his rare marshmallow at the TEC, but tossed this hardball at another denomination with seemingly little forethought?
Indeed and also took a cheap shot at those pondering the offer of an Ordinariate even though he has done nothing to provide for those same people himself. These comments showed a face we rarely see – the anger at the Pope is there and it showed.
I thought Damian Thompson’s comments were good on this subject. +Canterbury was both right and wrong: right in substance, but wrong in lobbing a hand grenade from England over to Ireland. Real smart politics there.
The ABC has made several comments on numerous topics. We are still waiting, waiting, waiting for a comment that can be attributed to RW himself (not a boilerplate Canterbury press release) on Mary Glasspool receiving the necessary consents. The silence is deafening.
“unfortunate wordsâ€
What is even more egregious in my eyes is that he never repents of evil thoughts, only “unfortunate wordsâ€. Well, he doesn’t repent of those, either. He only expresses sorrow that sounds like a dentist talking just before he sets the drill to your teeth.
Is this a cultural thing that I’m seeing or do I have this right?
Don
Don Gander,
[blockquote]A statement issued last night by the Dublin Archdiocese said: “The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, this afternoon telephoned Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to express his deep sorrow and regret for difficulties which may have been created by remarks in a BBC interview concerning the credibility of the Catholic Church in Ireland “Archbishop Williams affirmed that nothing could have been farther from his intention than to offend or criticise the Irish Church.” [/blockquote]Mr. nuance strikes again. If this is what he in fact said then he is disingenuous at the very least. He was being critical of the Irish Catholic Church. Where in this statement is there a sense that what he said was wrong? He only expresses regret that he was misunderstood.
Well if there’s anyone who has intimate knowledge of having lost all credibility, it’s Rowan.
By all means criticize Williams for inaction on the Glasspool Affair. But when it comes to the defenseless inaction by the Irish RCC, Williams’ words don’t hold a candle to Christ’s. I wish Rowan had been even harsher. And has pathetically biased as the NYT happens to be, it takes just that, or a reformation perhaps, to raise a Church.
The Archbishop could and probably should have been more careful in his choice of words. But I listened to his words themselves in what context was given by the BBC, and I heard him lamenting the Irish church’s challenge in the face of a massive negative perception, not judging the church herself. It has been pointed out to me that this was picked out and magnified on Ruth Gledhill’s blog, who then called for a massive re-inventing of the Catholic Church along the lines of her personal imagination. That is, Williams’ words have been taken out of context as public fodder for other people’s agenda. This represents manipulation rather than journalism, which is no surprise. The kind of apology Williams is reported to have offered sounds both genuine and true to his intentions. On the other hand, it is probably not wise for public figures to comment on the problems of others in the kind of unscripted interview format where this was said, precisely given this kind of danger.
justinmartyr your comments are very offensive. Statistically the catholic church has no worse problem than any other church- but why let facts get in the way of prejudice? yours is shinig through
I, for one, believe that the ABC acted like a bishop by criticizing the sex scandal. However, he needs to act like a bishop of his OWN Church now and be just as forceful about so much that he refuses to do. It’s easy to criticize something that you’ll have no hand in changing or no real consequence for not.
I was just about to say exactly what Ephraim Radner just said. He is absolutely correct. If one actually takes the time to listen to what the ABC says (in the audio version) it’s obviously NOT an attack on the RCC in Ireland, it’s obviously one Christian leader commiserating with great love for priests in another Christian communion.
I am just so SICK of people in the media jumping on every little comment by a public figure, twisting it, and then having people in some offended group demanding he recant his great wickedness. The opportunism is just appalling.
I am so disappointed in people repeatedly raising the issue that “no more than statistically” among Catholic priests. That is not the point; that has never been the point. The issue is the culture of superiority that had Bishop’s covering up molestation and then moving the priests on to other opportunities to molest, over and over in some cases. Seriously, stop ignoring the problem and the pain that has been caused to so many children. Stop calling it prejudce when someone points out the problem. It’s appalling.
rugbyplayingpriest please cite your claim –
BTW, when does “Statistically” factor into sin?
Thank you #9, #12
Of course. Why not start here:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/mora/
then read my own take
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2010/03/16/using-truth-as-a-weapon/
And no statistics do not factor into sin. Just one case would be horrific- HOWEVER – the press are not seeking to discredit the abusers who deserve heavy sentences but an entire church and that is sinister. Their is clearly a hidden agenda and it does not help when RW jumps on the band wagon with sharpened knife.
The Pope has apologised, he has sent an investigative group to Ireland and heads have rolled. But it is still not enough. And I feel it is grossly unfair that the RC church is being singled out with cries for his head. Especially when abuse rates are higher in prot denominations, the teaching profession and care homes.
Many of these cases are being raked from the dustbin of history. When does a truth become a convenient weapon to bludgeon a person or institution to their knees?
#13. I sort of agree with you. But there is still a problem- the singling out of the RC church.
I know FOR A FACT that the Anglican church behaved in a similar way for decades.
And why is no-one attacking the private schools in England- where exactly the same sort of brushing under the carpet went on during the 50’s-80’s.
Indeed the poor RC is being named and shamed with historic cases being scrutinised with 2010 procedure. This seems heavy handed and unfair. Either pull everyone into the same boat or state the agenda here
rugby, tell me my bias: I’m am curious to learn what it is. Where there is sexual abuse and sin in the Anglican church, I hope it receives as harsh criticism, not just from the secular press, but from the other churches such as Rome. Sin is sin is sin. And God calls us to live up to a higher standard than the unbelievers who are disgusted (and rightly so) by our actions. Statistics means nothing to me — scratch that: statistics is your little attempt to downplay a horrendous lapse of good judgment by the shepherds of a flock.
but there ARE similar lamentable crimes in the Anglican church. THAT is the point. The RC church is being singled out. Why?
I too am zero tolerance on abuse and find it disgusting. But let us go after the abusers and not the whole Roman church.
In the last two decades less than half of one per cent of RC priests have been accused of any sort of sexual sin. That is very low. IMagine how the 99.5% of good, honest priests feel with the press headlining this day after day after day.
Those who live in glass houses . . ..
On reading the ABC’s statement, I had the visceral kind of reaction anyone who has been sexually will have when someone in authority is in denial about the problem, whether it’s a Roman Catholic bishop, an Anglican bishop, the Boy Scouts, a school superintendant, a parent, etc.
Many years ago, I was propositioned by an Anglican priest then told to let it drop when I mentioned it to another Anglican priest. I had only recently ceased being a minor. I also had enough presence of mind to firmly say no to the “offer.†But I was counseled that it would be too sensationalist to press the matter and would damage the priest’s ministry. This same priest later got into further trouble.
Yes, this is only one person’s account so not even a significant statistic. But there’s compelling evidence that my brush with Anglican clergy sex abuse was anything but an isolated case. All of which makes me wonder whether the ABC himself isn’t a bit out of touch w/ the problem in the Anglican Communion. Either that or he has incredible chutzpah and counts on the media’s anti-Catholic bigotry to keep it from looking at the same problem in the Anglican Communion.
Sorry about the muddled sentence in 20, which should be: “On reading the ABC’s statement, I had the visceral kind of reaction anyone who has been sexually harassed or abused will have when someone in authority is in denial about the problem, whether it’s a Roman Catholic bishop, an Anglican bishop, the Boy Scouts, a school superintendant, a parent, etc.â€
#20 – thank you for your honesty and sorry you had to go through that. Praise God you were robust enough to prevent a disturbing incident becoming horrific
“But let us go after the abusers and not the whole Roman church.”
I think that sums up the issue at hand. The issue is not just that there were abusers, but the reaction of the church leadership in some regions was wrong. The focus of the NYTimes articles is on the leadership. They have the ring, the power and the responsibility. They lead a church that has a tranformative vision for the world and that calls everyone to do great things and deny themselves in many ways to do the right thing. And a notable amount of bishops and archbishops when faced with terrible sin in their diocese did the wrong thing. For the NYTimes to call it out, is not wrong. (They may report incorrectly and make unfair conclusions) but questioning the leadership is the right thing to do.
It may not be fair, and the NYTimes is not going after every Christian denomination, but when an organization claims nearly 1 out of every 5 people on the early as a adherents (17.4%), you better be prepared for some serious examination.
The Vatican reaction has been underwhelming and at times bewildering. Father Cantalamessa (who is a great preacher) invocation of the suffering of the Jewish people was terrible, the preamble by Cardinal Sodano to the Urbi et Orbi address was tone-deaf and the lack of an apology by the Pope on his handling of the matter while archbishop of Munich is sad. I just don’t understand why its so hard for the See of Peter to apologize for his own actions. Why ?
I concur with Jon,#12, that the media’s “gotcha” game is getting tiresome. I do marvel at our culture’s schizoid attitude to sexual sin. We go about as sexual sophisticates only to become outraged at the latest sexual scandal. Actually, I think we could benefit from reassessing our negative attitude to what our Victorian ancestors taught us about both death and sex.
Short correction – in post #23 the reference “the early” should be “the world”
Here we go. The ABC is pushed to apologise for a much-trumpeted and spun sound byte (without his complete remarks released over the weekend). Meanwhile, back at the Vatican, the household preacher is comparing the clergy “sufferings” over this exposure to the persecution of the Jewish people and a cardinal is dismissing the abuse reports as “petty gossip.”
After all of this, they STILL don’t get it! And this is being recognized all over the Internet, including Catholic sites/blogs. I would only hope that those here who are jumping on the ABC for a simple statement know not what they do when they defend the RCC’s outrageous and systemic behavior. Those of us who have been personally affected by it watch and listen in horror.
There can be no excuses made or finger-pointing at other churches. Yep, I grew up in an era when corporal punishment was permitted — and used — at schools. It doesn’t compare. Individual cases in other organizations and churches do not begin to match the systemic and widely international problem this has been in the RCC. My personal experiences with it involve priests who were sent to the U.S. from Africa, South America, and Mexico. Not only did the RCC move priests from parish to parish, but they moved them from continent to continent, too. Often. And they STILL do this. As I found, reporting it does no good, even in the 21st Century.
Maybe there are some here who, in their deep discontent with Anglicanism, are considering a move to the RCC and, in their anger and disappointment, are lashing out at the ABC. That is understandable, perhaps. But as one who was a devout RC for many years and saw/experienced way too much, I only ask that you proceed with the utmost of caution and full understanding. And, above all, quit making excuses for them and trying to divert attention from the seriousness of this systemic problem. As evidenced by their remarks this weekend, they still don’t get it. And they NEED to get it.
If any Anglican was to comment on the Irish Catholic Church, it should have been the Archbishop of Armagh.
The ABC’s comments are indeed unfortunate. They would have been inappropriate at any time of the year, but over this weekend they are being seen, with some justification, as offensive. The fact that his comments are largely accurate is neither here nor there. He is not a Catholic and he does not live in Ireland. It is none of his business. Rowan Williams has some fairly serious problems to deal with that fall under his bailiwick. He should stop worrying about other ecclesial communities and tend to the mess in his own house.
That said, as has been noted, he has apologized for his remarks. I believe that an apology having been offered, Christians are generally obligated to accept it and move on.
Christ is risen!
John
#26 NO NO NO they did not liken themselves to the Jews. Someone read out a letter FROM A JEW who was worried that the anti Catholic prejudice reminded HIM of anti semitism. But do not let the facts distort your post.
Secondly they really honestly DO GET IT (yes I can use capitals too) that is why the Pope has worked extremely hard to sort this and has now commisioned an investigation in Ireland and has ALSO APOLOGISED very clearly and very publically. What else can be done? These cases are almost all of them historic and not contemporary.
29.
Institutional reform needs to be done, that’s what. As in secular sexual abuse, this is about power and less about sex. In an institution like this where most of the power is held at the top, the system must change to include more checks and balances, more local problem-solving.
Surely you noted in these articles that the local bishops complained they were powerless to remove offenders from the priesthood because only the Vatican can do that — and it takes 5-7 years. Meanwhile, the perps can make more mischief because they retain their priestly faculties. They move elsewhere.
Sins of power show up in other ways, too. Sins of omission, as well as commission. Will the Vatican be willing to change, to relinquish some of that strong central power and culture of secrecy? It’s not as if Jesus prescribed the political makeup of this institution.
#26, teatime says, “… a cardinal is dismissing the abuse reports as ‘petty gossip’.” teatime, perhaps, understandably in your excitement, you’ve forgotten the meaning of calumny.
Phil swain: some could say that it is you guilty of calumny. That teatime has got to the heart of the matter, and that your snobby verbal assault is a deflection from that. Dunno?
31 – Why accuse teatime of calmuny? Cardinal Sodano referred to the “”current petty gossip”” (some translations including Catholic News Service) of ” ‘gossip’ of the moment” (Zenit.org) in the preamble to the Pope’s Easter Address.
#30, The bishops always had the canonical authority to remove suspect priests from public ministry without going first to the Vatican. They, the bishops, did not have to wait for the priest’s defrocking. Additionally, once you defrocked a priest, you were sending him out on the streets to an unsuspecting public. Better to keep the priest under supervison.
in man of these cases the police WERE informed but chose not to prosecute. Again a fact that seems to be ignored. It is not as if society deals with this well even now. Soft sentencing, infrequent prosecutions, the placing of paedophiles by primary schools without telling parents… need I go on. A root and branch upheaval is needed but in ALL OF SOCIETY
#33, Cardinal Sodano was not referring to the abuse reports as petty gossip as teatime stated in #26. You need to read a little more carefully.
Jackson,
To take one of your points, what exactly would the Pope apologize for in the Munich matter? Though the re-assignment apparently happened on his watch, the evidence so far suggests that he truly did not know about it since it was handled by others. And isn’t the issue so many are clamoring about the fact that bishops knew about (actually had knowledge of) the sex abuse and didn’t do anything about it? If the current evidence is correct, all the Pope can say is that he trusted those to whom he delegated certain responsibilities and wishes he hadn’t. Those screaming for his head won’t be satisfied with that, will they?
Teatime,
What do you mean by “systemicâ€? Is that supposed to imply widespread? If so, what data can you refer us to in support of that claim? If by “systemic” you mean a hierarchical system, how does the sexual harassment I experienced as an Anglican — which I was told not to bother the bishop about — any less a systemic problem than sexual harassment and abuse in the Roman Catholic Church? Aren’t both churches hierarchical?
This is too serious a matter to allow for carelessness in making claims and accusations. To be fair, though, if the New York Times can get away with misrepresenting facts (as in quoting Fr. Brundage without contacting him [oops!] and ignoring the very evidence they report) why should anyone worry about backing up one’s claims?
Anne – Thanks for the question. Whether the pope saw the memo that he was copied on is unknown. But it happened on his watch as archbishop. In any organization, managers and employees do things that the boss is unaware of, but the leader is the one who is responsible in the end. I think the pope should apologize for the lack of oversight in this instance. Its true that they are clamoring for those bishops too who had specific knowledge of it. I do think those who are asking for a papal apology would be satisfied as seen in the number of American bishops who wholeheartedly apologized and who have regained the full trust of their diocese. I also think (and I am not implying that you don’t) regardless of whether people are satisfied or not, if the pope or any Christian sins that they should apologize.
phil,
Accusing me of a sin doesn’t help your case. Sodano said what he did and accusing us of not “understanding” his comments the way you want to read them isn’t helpful, either.
Anne,
Isn’t it obvious by now that the problem is widespread? When the cases in the U.S. came out, the Vatican characterized it as an American problem and blamed the media. It was OUR culture that was the culprit, they said. They are now encountering the problems of holding to that line but they set themselves up for it.
In my response to rugbypriest, I detailed some of the problems associated with having local decision-making dependent on action from Rome. That is cumbersome in even the best of circumstances. They have, actually, moved a bit to include more local input through use of the synod and it would help them to consider more improvements along those lines.
I’m sorry for what you suffered. I had three similar experiences in the RCC and one of the priests threatened my job if I didn’t play ball. (I still didn’t.) Only my vigilance as a mum prevented my young son from becoming one of the child abuse victims and the priest in question skipped the country. To my knowledge, he still hasn’t been defrocked.
As a result, I have changed in the way I view the “Church” — I separate the “institution” from the “faith” and that’s probably a good thing. I will never fully trust any church “institution” and will always be vigilant but I think that the Anglican institution, which is smaller and has no powerful system of central authority, is the better model, though still imperfect.
No, Teatime, it’s not obvious that the problem is widespread in the Catholic Church. This is why I keep asking for evidence. If you read the mainstream media uncritically, then I understand how you reach your “obvious†conclusion.
I repeat, there is compelling evidence that the small percentage of Roman Catholic clergy who have engaged in abuse and the small number of incompetent bishops who re-assigned them is only the tip of a societal iceberg of abuse. The horrifying truth seems to be that sexual abuse is widespread throughout society as a whole. If you’re truly interested in protecting innocent children and vulnerable adults, why do you persist in refusing to look at the evidence that shows that the Catholic Church has made immense strides and is one of the safest places for children and vulnerable adults? Shouldn’t you be encouraged by the safe-guarding procedures (which can be more strongly enforced by an “institution†I would think)? Shouldn’t you take heart that Benedict XVI has been vigilant in addressing this problem? So why, exactly, are you attacking him?
I’m serious when I ask to see your evidence and when I ask for some indication that you try to consider all the evidence. Blogs such as this one should be places where we can discover information, shape opinions, correct misapprehensions.
In re: the smaller size of the Anglican institution and its less centralized structure, that didn’t make a whit of difference to this statistic when she was sexually harassed by one Anglican priest and told by another that it would be best to drop it.
Anne,
How many countries are now reporting the same type of abuse? It seems by evidence you require large numbers of pedophile priests and dastardly bishops. If the number of victims and the number of countries don’t bother you, then nothing will be sufficient, I guess.
You are an institutionalist. I am not. You require faith in your institution. I do not. I hope for the people’s sake that the Vatican does get it, but I hope more that the people come to realize that the Church lives, regardless of the institution.
And, again, I’m sorry that you were sexually harassed. For you to come to an Anglican blog to discuss it, you must still feel the pain. But please don’t turn this into a case of “my institution is better than your institution.” My own pain from my experiences in the RCC is also real but I don’t feel the need to go to RC blogs and promote Anglicanism over it. I am at peace with my faith and in my church, whose structure I admit is also imperfect but it works for me. I’m sorry you’re not at peace but I won’t permit you to try to take away mine. I’ll simply pray for you.
teatime, thanks for your calm, reasoned, charitable remarks. It is because of viewpoints like yours that I believe in a robust via media.
Teatime,
Thanks for your prayers. You are in mine as well.
Yes, the harassment I experienced caused a degree of pain. But I don’t associate it with the Anglican Communion or even with Christianity. It was sin, and sin doesn’t worry about whether it has its way among Christians or non-Christians, Catholics or Anglicans, priests or gym teachers. (I suppose one could argue that the closer a group of believers is to revealed truth, the more Satan will try to redouble his efforts against it, which could help explain why these things happened to the degree you seem to want to believe that they happened in the Catholic Church? But I digress and am veering close to Roman Catholic apologetics, yes?)
As for your numbers of countries where there are reports of abusive priests, etc., etc., I’m afraid you and the mainstream media continue to ignore the massive iceberg under the water. It’s as though you’re putting out a small grass fire while a building burns to the ground behind you. Do you really care about protecting innocent children? If so, look at the evidence.
Your characterization of my faith as an “institutionalist†is incorrect. But pursuing that would also be a digression.
Whoa, can you please explain what you mean by this?
[blockquote]I suppose one could argue that the closer a group of believers is to revealed truth, the more Satan will try to redouble his efforts against it, which could help explain why these things happened to the degree you seem to want to believe that they happened in the Catholic Church? [/blockquote]
I’m reading this as you think that most of the abuse cases are lies and part of Satan’s plan to take down the RCC, the font of truth. Is that correct? And since I (and others) believe that there has been widespread abuse, then we’re, basically, Satan’s tools?
Aren’t we all Satan’s tools, so to speak, (i.e. sinners) when we condemn others without a fair trial?
Your choice of the word “believe” in “I . . . believe that there has been widespread abuse . . .” is instructive. What I’m waiting to read is that you know (not believe) that there has been widespread abuse in the Catholic Church (“widespread” meaning larger numbers than exist in other churches and in society in general) and that you have solid evidence to prove it. It would also be helpful if you could show that you know (don’t believe, but know) that the strides the Catholic Church has made in addressing the problem have not been effective.
Anne,
You didn’t answer my questions. And, frankly, if this is the sort of thing you are purporting (that it’s all smoke and mirrors and a Satanic conspiracy), then no amount of “evidence” will prove it to you, anyway. It is not up to me, a lay Anglican, to provide you with what you would deem “solid” statistics even if I had access to them, which I don’t.
If you don’t believe that the substantive Irish report has any merit (and that was the culmination of a major investigation), then nothing a mere blog participant has to say will matter.
Anne – tell me if I have it right- that you argument is that the sexual abuse rate in the RCC church is not high compared to society.
If I got that right, let’s accept it for the sake of argument/conversation.
Isn’t the concern that demogrphicalky RCC priests would be expected to have lower sexual abuse rates then society? For example, the per capita burglery rate in the US is 7 per 1000. That would mean that within the RCC priest community of 41k in the US that you would expect to see 287 bugleries a year performed by priests on other priests. But I don’t think that’s the case…because RCC priests as a group are selected to live more noble lives (like other Christians) compared to society. And thus I think that the media reaction is that the sex abuse for such a special lot of people is abnormally high.
I think the RCC actions in the past few years have been notable. But as we all know well by watching it unfold in Boston a) had it not been for the media it would not have received it’s due attention And b) the pain of sin cannot be turned off fast.
Well, not to take this thread away from tilting at strawmen on both sides of the Catholic sex abuse issue and comments on the Catholic Church in Ireland by the ABC, but as an Anglican, I find far more offensive, Rowan’s words in the above article that those who wish to take the Pope’s offer that he hoped “God blessed them, he didn’t.”
It would be one thing to act peevish and upset if RW had moved one iota to actually make the disaffected Anglicans feel welcome in their own Church. However, in the Church of England they are about to create women bishops without ANY meaningful safeguards for those who merely wish to continue in the faith once delivered to the saints… the same faith that up until about a decade and a half before was the official and centuries old position of the Church of England, and mirrored the faith as practiced in the other churches that also claim apostolic succession.
I personally have no problem with women’s ordination, but I have quite a problem with changing the rules on faithful Anglicans and then making a remark such as above which might as well say “Don’t let the Church door hit you on your way out.” This is what RW needs to apologize for.
billqs- amen and thank you.
Teatime- is it not quite possible for Satan to guide abusers and delight in bringing them into the church? It does not make the abuse a consipracy but it might link the abuse and the media witch hunt as having a similar origin.
And why does the fact that abuse cases come from many countries surprise you. If anything it is further proof that this problem is widespread and part of society and needs tackling as such. The church is made up of sinners- that is a problem. That evil men accross the globe spotted an opportunity to abuse is awful…. but they never were, are or will be the actual church they soiled.
Teatime,
It doesn’t follow from my “one could argue†comment in number 43 that I consider most abuse cases (by which I assume you mean abuse cases that have been sufficiently examined) to be lies.
I don’t know what you mean by “it’s all smoke and mirrors.†I don’t know what your “it’s†refers to. And where did I use the term “smoke and mirrors�
I didn’t say you need to supply statistics. I said that if you’re going to make accusations, you need to back them up with evidence. Your status as a lay Anglican does not excuse you from the responsibility of basic justice. I assume the Irish report was accurate. But your accusations are against the Catholic Church as a whole as though this is where the problem of sex abuse lies, not in other churches as well or in society as a whole; as though steps taken by the Catholic Church to address the matter have been ineffective; as though Rowan Williams and other Anglican bishops needn’t take notice of the claims of serious problems along these lines in the Anglican church. It would compound the tragedy of deceit and abuse you experienced in the Catholic Church if you were not to take from that experience the need to exercise a healthily cautious and constructively critical stance in your current situation as well – even where clergy sex abuse is concerned.
Jackson,
My argument is not that the clergy sex abuse rate (whether in simple numbers or as a percentage rate) in the Catholic Church is less than that in society as a whole. I don’t know whether it is or not. As far as I’m aware, we don’t have a definitive answer to that question. But there’s compelling evidence (not definitive but compelling, I think) that sex abuse is higher than we would like to think in society as a whole, including in other churches. I agree with you and Peggy Noonan that the media did the Catholic Church a great service by exposing the Boston cover-ups and others as well. But just as we have to hold the feet of the Catholic hierarchy to the fire, so must we do with the media. The New York Times reportage of the Milwaukee case was either deceitful or culpably negligent. The handling of that story alone (never mind the many other mis-reported stories and skewed editorials in the mainstream press) requires us to wonder whether there’s an anti-Catholic bias at work. If so, would this explain why other churches are not the subject of investigative journalism as well; why sex abuse in non-religious institutions is un-reported or under-reported (the Vienna Boys Choir story has not been front-page material); why the recent spate of stories appeared in time for Holy Week?
rugbyplayingpriest,
Yes, I do think that Satan was at work tempting priests into sin. However, I do not believe that this issue is largely an overblown guise of Satan to bring down the church, which is what Anne suggested (although she didn’t answer my questions on that). There is a difference.
And I don’t know how you perceived that I am “surprised” at the widespread cases. Indeed, I’m not and have not been, ever since the Vatican tried to frame this as primarily an “American” problem several years ago.
Teatime,
Would you be surprised if (I say if) the mainstream media were to turn its attention to sex abuse in the Anglican Communion and were to find the same situation? If not, why not? Would Rowan Williams be surprised, I wonder?
Anne and Rugby, I am disgusted by the way you focus on the media’s approach to this abomination rather than the abomination itself. I think it is insulting that you would even imply that teatime would have a different attitude to the uncovering of molestation in the Anglican church. Have you not read any of her statements? Teatime considers her allegiance to Christ and her faith, not to any church’s institution. Is that so hard to get?
In clarification: statistics should be used as a tool to the elimination of abuse, NOT as an tool to downplay molestation as you are very clearly doing. So what if it abuse commonplace in society? So what if there are more molestations happening in other places? Judgment, not justification should begin at the house of God. If you really, honestly believe that your institution is the God-given gift to this planet, then you of all people should be harshest in eliminating all hints of evil from it. I see only justification of evil, evil bishops coming from your keyboard.
Concerning #48, it begins to appear that the AbC’s words were “spun” in a grossly unintelligent manner by Ms. Gledhill. She reports him as stating:
“Dr Williams also reveals on the BBC Radio 4 programme Start the Week that he is withholding his blessing from Anglicans who choose to take advantage of the Pope’s offer of a special home in the Catholic Church for disaffected Anglicans. ‘God bless them. I don’t,’ he says, witheringly.”
but it seems he meant this:
“They believe they ought to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I can only say fine, God bless them. I don’t at the moment.â€â€”meaning, “I don’t believe I ought to be in communion with the Bp of Rome,†not “I don’t bless them†(which would be a very strange and bitter thing to say, if true).
Interesting that he should say that he does not “at the moment†believe that he ought to be in communion with the Pope. Perhaps he will believe a different thing at a different moment. Perhaps his armorial emblem ought to be the weathercock.
Justinmartyr,
Did you truly mean to write, “so what if there are more molestations happening in other places?†Did you really mean to write that?! Do you think the children whom statistics indicate are being molested by teachers, scoutmasters, mothers’ boyfriends, etc. would be reassured by you saying “so what†about what they’re going through?
Your assertions about my statements, meanings, and motivations depart so wildly from the actual texts I’ve written and make so many unjustified assumptions (all of which are false), that it is advisable for me to decline to respond. I am learning that there are some contributors to this blog with whom intelligent, fair-minded discussion is not an option.
As has become clear from your interactions with Teatime, your constant attribution of intelligence and fair mindedness to yourself are becoming a little cloying.
If you believe that I actually condone abuse anywhere then please continue to do so. You want to see the opponents of the RC status quo as biased opponents with an agenda other than disgust for the evil within your institution and all other institutions where it occurs. This is why you must continually ask teatime the same questions over and over. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
you keep failing to aknowledge my point which is why I keep making it justinmartyr. My desire is in no way to play down the abuse. The abusers have my fullest sympathy and I am all for coming down on the abusers with the full weight of the law. However what you will not even aknowledge is that the media have another agenda in all this. And so yes- I also deplore the way they single out an institution and act as if the abuse rate is higher than average when it is lower or else on a par.
Deal with child abuse by all means but let us do so honestly and fairly. The point being made is that offending was just as rife in other places at this time and just as likely to be covered up. What we are witnessing is two fold- a grissly look at an abhorrent evil- and the desire to use that awful reality to beat the pope.
Justinmartyr,
Being relatively new to the blogosphere and its rules of etiquette, I hope I’m not out of line when I write that I wish you well, but we will not engage in further dialogue. If you find it helpful to know why:
ï® Failure (or refusal?) to acknowledge clearly articulated arguments. (As this long thread proves)
ï® Making assumptions about the statements of others, departing wildly from the statements themselves.
rugbyplayingpriest
Lets assume for the sake of argument that all of your positions are correct:
-The media has another agenda
-they single out an institution
-act as if the abuse rate is higher than average when its lower or else on par
And that the NYTimes included the three points above in their articles (every single one of them)
Would that change the way that Christians should respond to it?
I don’t think so. Yes, there would be some indignation towards the media. But the sin which precipitates the media reporting, sins of omission and commission by abusers and those that lead them, ought to be apologized for whatever the intentions of those those that report it.
If I did a terrible crime, and the media reported on it because they had a grudge, would it affect the response to sin that I should have as a Christian? I should apologize.
I think that what has been disappointing… is some quarters of the media with a grudge and some quarters of the Vatican seeing this as an institutional fight, when in fact the Vatican should play the big person card…realize that the bigger issue is sin, apologize as necessary, focused on the abused and stop playing out an institutional fight, when if the Lord is really protecting it, the NYTimes pales in comparison.
Its just sad to see the level of effort to protect itself, shows that some in the Curia are focused on the wrong thing, its about the abused, not the NYTimes.
Jackson,
I agree. If there has been wrongdoing of a very serious nature, one should admit it. Christians will know how to make sense of it in terms of forgiveness, penitence, conversion, redemption. The blood-thirsty elements in the media? Who knows?
But whose wrongdoing are we talking about? The pope has apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for what happened in Ireland. Arguably, he didn’t say enough and hasn’t done enough – at least according to the playbook and timeframes of the chattering classes. But the letter makes it clear that the Vatican isn’t finished cleaning up that mess.
As for the Munich case, even the dodgy string of evidence the media presents to us has yet to come up with a “smoking gun†that shows Ratzinger intentionally, knowingly re-assigned the priest. Any leader of a large organization delegates, which is what Ratzinger did, apparently. It seems he delegated to someone of poor judgment. If that’s so, all he can personally apologize for is for having been taken in by the delegatee in question, which I’m not sure one should apologize for. Yes, he should apologize for this having happened while he was in charge, and that apology might yet be forthcoming. But I’m not convinced that’s really what all the hue and cry is about. If conclusive evidence of knowledge on Ratzinger’s part is revealed, I’ll be the first to say an apology for having known and not done enough is called for – at the least.
I can’t speak for the others who point out the role of the media in all of this. But my concern is that the media (and I’m generalizing, but not irresponsibly) seems to be doing several things that are disturbing:
1. Being careless in its reportage. (And this has been proven decisively in some cases.)
2. Fixating on Benedict XVI. Dig deep enough in anyone’s past and you’ll find something eventually. As far as I’m aware, the Munich case, which seems (from the questionable evidence presented so far) to be a bad decision made some decades ago, is all the media have come up w/ so far. Even if the suggestion of a bad decision decades ago proves true, Benedict has given ample evidence of a new Weltanschauung that no one could question. In fact, the mounting evidence indicates that Benedict has been championing reform in the face of entrenched and possibly devious opposition within the Vatican. So even if there was a mistake umpteen years ago, the man can be trusted now and in the future. So why exactly go after him in quite this manner, even to the extent of ignoring professional journalistic standards?
3. Setting its own playbook and timeline by which the Vatican is expected to abide. Damian Thompson caught the London Times reporting that there was widespread disappointment in Benedict’s letter before it was even issued! Before it was even issued! Nothing the Vatican did or said was ever going to be prompt enough or self-abasing enough for the Ruth Gledhills, the Richard Owens, the Rachel Donadios, etc.
I say we thank the media for the good work they’ve done but let’s not be taken in by the media either. For my part, I’d rather Rome take the time it needs to respond to the situation well rather than scramble to issue statements. (And yes, some in the Vatican have spoken too hastily of late, IMHO.)
Anne – My interest in narrow in the Munich case, and I think you and I respectively disagree on whether he needs to apologize now.
Thanks for the comments – I agree the media can and has been overboard in some of this reporting. I hope that Rome maintains an eternal perspective on this. Best