Noteworthy: CDF Clarifies Rules concerning Abuse

This press release from the Vatican today, clarifying the Church rules on sexual abuse reporting.  (If you go HERE you can get the press releases from the Vatican emailed to you)  I find it very informative.

The CDF Clarification: Text

VATICAN CITY, 12 APR 2010 (VIS) - Today the Vatican website, under the section called "Focus", published a guide to understanding the procedures of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sexual abuse allegations towards minors.

Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations

The applicable law is the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists.

A:  Preliminary Procedures

The local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric.

If the allegation has a semblance of truth the case is referred to the CDF.  The local bishop transmits all the necessary information to the CDF and expresses his opinion on the procedures to be followed and the measures to be adopted in the short and long term.

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

During the preliminary stage and until the case is concluded, the bishop may impose precautionary measures to safeguard the community, including the victims. Indeed, the local bishop always retains power to protect children by restricting the activities of any priest in his diocese.  This is part of his ordinary authority, which he is encouraged to exercise to whatever extent is necessary to assure that children do not come to harm, and this power can be exercised at the bishop's discretion before, during and after any canonical proceeding.

B: Procedures authorized by the CDF

The CDF studies the case presented by the local bishop and also asks for supplementary information where necessary.

The CDF has a number of options:

B1 Penal Processes

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct a judicial penal trial before a local Church tribunal. Any appeal in such cases would eventually be lodged to a tribunal of the CDF.

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct an administrative penal process before a delegate of the local bishop assisted by two assessors. The accused priest is called to respond to the accusations and to review the evidence.  The accused has a right to present recourse to the CDF against a decree condemning him to a canonical penalty.  The decision of the Cardinals members of the CDF is final.

Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.  The question of damages can also be treated directly during these procedures.

B2 Cases referred directly to the Holy Father

In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state.  There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.

The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state.  The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae").

B3 Disciplinary Measures

In cases where the accused priest has admitted to his crimes and has accepted to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue a decree prohibiting or restricting the public ministry of such a priest.  Such decrees are imposed through a penal precept which would entail a canonical penalty for a violation of the conditions of the decree, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.  Administrative recourse to the CDF is possible against such decrees.  The decision of the CDF is final.

C. Revision of MP SST

For some time the CDF has undertaken a revision of some of the articles of "Motu Proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela", in order to update the said Motu Proprio of 2001 in the light of special faculties granted to the CDF by Popes  John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The proposed modifications under discussion will not change the above-mentioned procedures (A, B1-B3).

CDF/                                                                                                VIS 20100412 (720)           

The Significant Points, Analyzed

I find this an interesting Clarification in light of all the misrepresentations in the media.  Let's look at some of the crucial points.  (Church quote in blue, my comments in black):

1. "The applicable law is the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists."  This isn't a change of the laws.  It is explaining to people who are not canon lawyers how the Church procedures actually work.  Given the ignorance of the media in this issue, this is quite important.
2. "The local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric."  Quite important to clarify where the buck stops.  The buck stops with the Bishop.  The bishop who kicks things under the table is doing wrong.  Deciding arbitrarily who is credible is also wrong.  If an allegation is being made, it must be investigated.
3. "If the allegation has a semblance of truth the case is referred to the CDF."  So if the initial investigation doesn't establish the claims as false, it must be sent to the CDF.  This is not optional.  This shows the responsibility of the diocese to inform, and not sit on the cases.
4. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."  Also crucial.  If a crime is reported to the diocese, it must pass it on as civil law requires.  (Civil law is in contrast to Canon law and not Criminal Law by the way.  The document, for example speaks of a "civil criminal trial.")
5. The CDF has certain options in how the case is handled depending on the circumstances.  It can:
   1. "The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct a judicial penal trial before a local Church tribunal. Any appeal in such cases would eventually be lodged to a tribunal of the CDF."  If the Church decides the local tribunal can handle the case, the case is investigated there.  If the accused appeals, it would then go to the CDF.
   2. "The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct an administrative penal process before a delegate of the local bishop assisted by two assessors. The accused priest is called to respond to the accusations and to review the evidence.  The accused has a right to present recourse to the CDF against a decree condemning him to a canonical penalty.  The decision of the Cardinals members of the CDF is final."  The Bishop with two assessors may also try the case.  In this case, the CDF can still be appealed to,  The CDF decision is considered final.
   3. "Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.  The question of damages can also be treated directly during these procedures."  The priest found guilty can be sentenced to different canonical penalties which can (but not necessarily must) be dismissed from the clerical state (which means the priest is forbidden to use those gifts which the sacrament bestows.  It does not mean the priest is stripped of the sacrament).
6. "In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state.  There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree."  So if the priest is convicted in a criminal trial, or the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF can take the case to the Pope to automatically strip the priest of his clerical state… no appeal possible here.
7. "The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state.  The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae")."  So if the Pope deems it for the good of the Church, priests who admit their guilt can (not necessarily will) be returned to the lay state (which means they are released from their vows and can marry.  They still have the gifts granted by the sacrament but are forbidden to use them).
8. "In cases where the accused priest has admitted to his crimes and has accepted to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue a decree prohibiting or restricting the public ministry of such a priest.  Such decrees are imposed through a penal precept which would entail a canonical penalty for a violation of the conditions of the decree, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.  Administrative recourse to the CDF is possible against such decrees.  The decision of the CDF is final."  This is important in light of all these bogus "Pope stalls defrocking" headlines.  A priest who admits his crimes can be ordered to live a life of prayer and penance, where the Bishop issues a decree where the priest is restricted or prohibited from practicing their ministry.  If the priest violates the conditions, he can suffer additional penalties or even dismissal.  The priest who is treated unjustly can appeal, but what the CDF decides in such a case is final.

Conclusion

This document shows the rush to judgment by the media demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the Church procedures.  There is a procedure which must be followed.  The most serious cases can result in automatic dismissal by the Pope or the CDF automatically.  Other cases can be judged by the diocese and appealed to the CDF.

The penalties do not have to automatically be dismissal from the clerical state (often wrongly called "defrocking").  The priest can be limited or forbidden to practice their priestly ministry if the circumstances warrant it.

This is interesting to note.  The media labels anything which is not a dismissal to be a "cover up," but in the rules of the Church, the penalty fits the crime and is aimed at bringing the sinful priest to repentance.

When this is kept in mind, the accusations of the bishops wanting dismissal and the Vatican "covering up" are baseless.  In most cases, the Diocese hears the case and sets the penalty, keeping the CDF informed.  In such cases, a diocese seeking to pass on the case assigned to them are guilty of "passing the buck."  In serious cases, the CDF can handle it directly or send it up to the Pope with the recommendation to dismiss the offender.

In light of this, the Church condemnations in the media demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the Church procedures and a lack of interest in finding out what the Church requires.

Noteworthy: CDF Clarifies Rules concerning Abuse

This press release from the Vatican today, clarifying the Church rules on sexual abuse reporting.  (If you go HERE you can get the press releases from the Vatican emailed to you)  I find it very informative.

The CDF Clarification: Text

VATICAN CITY, 12 APR 2010 (VIS) - Today the Vatican website, under the section called "Focus", published a guide to understanding the procedures of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sexual abuse allegations towards minors.

Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations

The applicable law is the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists.

A:  Preliminary Procedures

The local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric.

If the allegation has a semblance of truth the case is referred to the CDF.  The local bishop transmits all the necessary information to the CDF and expresses his opinion on the procedures to be followed and the measures to be adopted in the short and long term.

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

During the preliminary stage and until the case is concluded, the bishop may impose precautionary measures to safeguard the community, including the victims. Indeed, the local bishop always retains power to protect children by restricting the activities of any priest in his diocese.  This is part of his ordinary authority, which he is encouraged to exercise to whatever extent is necessary to assure that children do not come to harm, and this power can be exercised at the bishop's discretion before, during and after any canonical proceeding.

B: Procedures authorized by the CDF

The CDF studies the case presented by the local bishop and also asks for supplementary information where necessary.

The CDF has a number of options:

B1 Penal Processes

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct a judicial penal trial before a local Church tribunal. Any appeal in such cases would eventually be lodged to a tribunal of the CDF.

The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct an administrative penal process before a delegate of the local bishop assisted by two assessors. The accused priest is called to respond to the accusations and to review the evidence.  The accused has a right to present recourse to the CDF against a decree condemning him to a canonical penalty.  The decision of the Cardinals members of the CDF is final.

Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.  The question of damages can also be treated directly during these procedures.

B2 Cases referred directly to the Holy Father

In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state.  There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.

The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state.  The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae").

B3 Disciplinary Measures

In cases where the accused priest has admitted to his crimes and has accepted to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue a decree prohibiting or restricting the public ministry of such a priest.  Such decrees are imposed through a penal precept which would entail a canonical penalty for a violation of the conditions of the decree, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.  Administrative recourse to the CDF is possible against such decrees.  The decision of the CDF is final.

C. Revision of MP SST

For some time the CDF has undertaken a revision of some of the articles of "Motu Proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela", in order to update the said Motu Proprio of 2001 in the light of special faculties granted to the CDF by Popes  John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The proposed modifications under discussion will not change the above-mentioned procedures (A, B1-B3).

CDF/                                                                                                VIS 20100412 (720)           

The Significant Points, Analyzed

I find this an interesting Clarification in light of all the misrepresentations in the media.  Let's look at some of the crucial points.  (Church quote in blue, my comments in black):

1. "The applicable law is the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela" (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This is an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists."  This isn't a change of the laws.  It is explaining to people who are not canon lawyers how the Church procedures actually work.  Given the ignorance of the media in this issue, this is quite important.
2. "The local diocese investigates every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric."  Quite important to clarify where the buck stops.  The buck stops with the Bishop.  The bishop who kicks things under the table is doing wrong.  Deciding arbitrarily who is credible is also wrong.  If an allegation is being made, it must be investigated.
3. "If the allegation has a semblance of truth the case is referred to the CDF."  So if the initial investigation doesn't establish the claims as false, it must be sent to the CDF.  This is not optional.  This shows the responsibility of the diocese to inform, and not sit on the cases.
4. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."  Also crucial.  If a crime is reported to the diocese, it must pass it on as civil law requires.  (Civil law is in contrast to Canon law and not Criminal Law by the way.  The document, for example speaks of a "civil criminal trial.")
5. The CDF has certain options in how the case is handled depending on the circumstances.  It can:
   1. "The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct a judicial penal trial before a local Church tribunal. Any appeal in such cases would eventually be lodged to a tribunal of the CDF."  If the Church decides the local tribunal can handle the case, the case is investigated there.  If the accused appeals, it would then go to the CDF.
   2. "The CDF may authorize the local bishop to conduct an administrative penal process before a delegate of the local bishop assisted by two assessors. The accused priest is called to respond to the accusations and to review the evidence.  The accused has a right to present recourse to the CDF against a decree condemning him to a canonical penalty.  The decision of the Cardinals members of the CDF is final."  The Bishop with two assessors may also try the case.  In this case, the CDF can still be appealed to,  The CDF decision is considered final.
   3. "Should the cleric be judged guilty, both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.  The question of damages can also be treated directly during these procedures."  The priest found guilty can be sentenced to different canonical penalties which can (but not necessarily must) be dismissed from the clerical state (which means the priest is forbidden to use those gifts which the sacrament bestows.  It does not mean the priest is stripped of the sacrament).
6. "In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Holy Father with the request that the Pope issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state.  There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree."  So if the priest is convicted in a criminal trial, or the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF can take the case to the Pope to automatically strip the priest of his clerical state… no appeal possible here.
7. "The CDF also brings to the Holy Father requests by accused priests who, cognizant of their crimes, ask to be dispensed from the obligation of the priesthood and want to return to the lay state.  The Holy Father grants these requests for the good of the Church ("pro bono Ecclesiae")."  So if the Pope deems it for the good of the Church, priests who admit their guilt can (not necessarily will) be returned to the lay state (which means they are released from their vows and can marry.  They still have the gifts granted by the sacrament but are forbidden to use them).
8. "In cases where the accused priest has admitted to his crimes and has accepted to live a life of prayer and penance, the CDF authorizes the local bishop to issue a decree prohibiting or restricting the public ministry of such a priest.  Such decrees are imposed through a penal precept which would entail a canonical penalty for a violation of the conditions of the decree, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.  Administrative recourse to the CDF is possible against such decrees.  The decision of the CDF is final."  This is important in light of all these bogus "Pope stalls defrocking" headlines.  A priest who admits his crimes can be ordered to live a life of prayer and penance, where the Bishop issues a decree where the priest is restricted or prohibited from practicing their ministry.  If the priest violates the conditions, he can suffer additional penalties or even dismissal.  The priest who is treated unjustly can appeal, but what the CDF decides in such a case is final.

Conclusion

This document shows the rush to judgment by the media demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the Church procedures.  There is a procedure which must be followed.  The most serious cases can result in automatic dismissal by the Pope or the CDF automatically.  Other cases can be judged by the diocese and appealed to the CDF.

The penalties do not have to automatically be dismissal from the clerical state (often wrongly called "defrocking").  The priest can be limited or forbidden to practice their priestly ministry if the circumstances warrant it.

This is interesting to note.  The media labels anything which is not a dismissal to be a "cover up," but in the rules of the Church, the penalty fits the crime and is aimed at bringing the sinful priest to repentance.

When this is kept in mind, the accusations of the bishops wanting dismissal and the Vatican "covering up" are baseless.  In most cases, the Diocese hears the case and sets the penalty, keeping the CDF informed.  In such cases, a diocese seeking to pass on the case assigned to them are guilty of "passing the buck."  In serious cases, the CDF can handle it directly or send it up to the Pope with the recommendation to dismiss the offender.

In light of this, the Church condemnations in the media demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the Church procedures and a lack of interest in finding out what the Church requires.

Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.

Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.

Striking the Shepherd

Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written:

‘I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be dispersed.’ (Mk 14:27).

What are we to make of the attacks against the Pope which seems to be going on daily… yet not a single allegation has been anything more than post hoc fallacy and insinuation, brought on by a media which seems to have no knowledge of Church procedures and no interest in learning?

The truth is, as the Church defends herself from these attacks and these defenses are entirely ignored by the media, what we are seeing is not an interest in protecting the youth and reporting the facts. What we are seeing is nothing less than an attempt to condemn the leader of the Catholic Church and shake the faith of those members of the Church.

The Effect of the Attacks

Tragically, it seems to be working. Polls claim that the popularity of the Pope is falling.  The London Times labels the Church defense against these unjust attacks as "bluster."  Church baiter Andrew Sullivan has claimed the Pope has "no moral authority."

None of these Charges have ever been proven. All of them have been Debunked

The problem is: While the media claims the attacks are true, in every case the charges made against Pope Benedict XVI have been debunked. The claim is that the Pope was responsible for quashing all attempts by the “heroic” bishops to remove predator priests. The fact is the media is employing the argument from silence fallacy to argue that since they have not heard of a solution, the Church did nothing and then Cardinal Ratzinger must have been responsible for this.

This kind of thing would be considered slander if the Pope was not considered a public person (in US law, conviction of slander against a public person requires proof that the story was published with malicious intent).

A Pyramid of Nothing

The public seems to be intimidated by a continued collection of stories against the Pope. The old adage where there’s smoke, there’s fire is considered to be true and the fact that the media is reporting these stories continually leads one to believe that there must be truth to it, even though the reports are entirely based on the media’s interpretation of documents and lawyers suing the Church, with no attempts to study what the Church has done, how it governed itself and so on.

The Oakland Case

In the latest case, we are told that then Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for quashing the case, even though the CDF, at the time, only dealt with cases involving the abuse of the confessional. There is an excellent debunking of the story by Fr. Zuhlsdorf who points out the gross misunderstandings of the media in this case.

For example, the media reports that the priest himself requested a dispensation, which it confuses with laicization. The AP report says:

But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

However the priest’s request was hardly a “stop me before I abuse again.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out what dispensation is in comparison to laicization, in his commentary on the story:

"DISPENSATION"? AP has been talking about the priest’s "removal" but not about a "dispensation".  What dispensation?  Dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state?  That is not the same as the "removal" implied in dismissal from the clerical state, which is a punishment.  Of course the half-informed scribblers of AP probably don’t understand this.  But, dear reader, this was an interesting line in the letter, if that is what it actually says in Latin.  As I read these things, here is what comes to mind.  And this is where the AP’s desires fall apart in this case.  In the 60’s and 70’s hordes of priests simply left ministry or, if they requested a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, they were often caused to wait a great deal of time – often a decade or more – until the priest was older and had a change to reflect – with the hope that somehow they might be recovered as priests.  Clearly this case is more complicated because the priest concerned had harmed children.  But back in the day, the standard operating procedure was to try to save priests from quitting.  Therefore, when a petition for dispensation had been made, the Congregation followed their standard operating procedure.

This is an excellent point. When we consider that in the 1980s, the CDF was only involved if the case involved solicitation in the confessional, the job to keep the priest in line fell to the Bishop, John Cummins, who appears to shamefully failed in his duties. Dispensation (the removal from obligations) is not the same thing as the penalty of laicization (the forbidding of the priest to practice his ministry). The priest was asking to be removed from the vows of celibacy and the like. Certainly this would be a scandal, and if the CDF had given a dispensation, I have no doubt that today the story would have been that the priest was “rewarded” for his actions (much as some say Cardinal Law was “rewarded” for his actions when he was “encouraged” to retire from one of the most powerful and influential dioceses in the United States and wound up being nothing more than a glorified pastor of an obscure church in Rome).

Any old stick will do to bash the Catholic Church.

“Defrocking” and Penalties

The media has been reporting about how certain priests were not “defrocked” (a false term) but it overlooks the fact that penalties can be exacted which forbid the priest from practicing their ministries which do not require laicization (which is limited to certain cases).

Whatever the penalty may be, the Church operates under the principle of law. It does not arbitrarily throw penalties about. The possibility of the accused being innocent is recognized. Investigations do need to be carried out, and the penalties need to fit the crime

In 2001, the Church did make changes to the rules in order to eliminate loopholes abusers could hide behind. Processes were streamlined and in severe cases, the CDF could eliminate the statue of limitations (ordinarily ten years after the abused minor reaches the age of 18).

The Double Standard

The ironic thing is, the Church stands condemned for not doing what it was (wrongly) accused of doing in the Inquisition… arbitrarily inflicting punishment on individuals without trial. So which is it? If the Church should be arbitrary, there is no cause for complaint when the Church is (falsely) accused of arbitrarily punishing during the Inquisition. If it is to take time and fairly investigate, then it also applies to priests accused of abuse.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the issue is that the Church is being attacked with the intent of undermining the support of the faithful. Whenever one story is debunked, another will keep on coming, with the intent of making the defenders weary and the average man in the pews thinking there must be some truth simply due to the sheer volume of the attacks.

Yet the fact that the reports are continually debunked should give the reader pause. If the attacks are continually shoddy and based on interpretation without proof to back it up, the veracity of the accuser should be investigated. If the media is continually shown to be misrepresenting the case against the Pope, shouldn’t we perhaps demand they prove the charge of guilt instead of demanding the Pope prove his innocence?

Perhaps we should even investigate the motives of the accusers from the media.

Of course it won't happen.  When a person is tried in the media, the accused is "guilty until proven innocent" and the accused is never innocent.

Because of this, my fellow Catholics should remember this: rash judgment is a sin.  We are obligated to be informed before passing judgment on another person… even the Pope.

Striking the Shepherd

Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written:

‘I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be dispersed.’ (Mk 14:27).

What are we to make of the attacks against the Pope which seems to be going on daily… yet not a single allegation has been anything more than post hoc fallacy and insinuation, brought on by a media which seems to have no knowledge of Church procedures and no interest in learning?

The truth is, as the Church defends herself from these attacks and these defenses are entirely ignored by the media, what we are seeing is not an interest in protecting the youth and reporting the facts. What we are seeing is nothing less than an attempt to condemn the leader of the Catholic Church and shake the faith of those members of the Church.

The Effect of the Attacks

Tragically, it seems to be working. Polls claim that the popularity of the Pope is falling.  The London Times labels the Church defense against these unjust attacks as "bluster."  Church baiter Andrew Sullivan has claimed the Pope has "no moral authority."

None of these Charges have ever been proven. All of them have been Debunked

The problem is: While the media claims the attacks are true, in every case the charges made against Pope Benedict XVI have been debunked. The claim is that the Pope was responsible for quashing all attempts by the “heroic” bishops to remove predator priests. The fact is the media is employing the argument from silence fallacy to argue that since they have not heard of a solution, the Church did nothing and then Cardinal Ratzinger must have been responsible for this.

This kind of thing would be considered slander if the Pope was not considered a public person (in US law, conviction of slander against a public person requires proof that the story was published with malicious intent).

A Pyramid of Nothing

The public seems to be intimidated by a continued collection of stories against the Pope. The old adage where there’s smoke, there’s fire is considered to be true and the fact that the media is reporting these stories continually leads one to believe that there must be truth to it, even though the reports are entirely based on the media’s interpretation of documents and lawyers suing the Church, with no attempts to study what the Church has done, how it governed itself and so on.

The Oakland Case

In the latest case, we are told that then Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for quashing the case, even though the CDF, at the time, only dealt with cases involving the abuse of the confessional. There is an excellent debunking of the story by Fr. Zuhlsdorf who points out the gross misunderstandings of the media in this case.

For example, the media reports that the priest himself requested a dispensation, which it confuses with laicization. The AP report says:

But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

However the priest’s request was hardly a “stop me before I abuse again.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out what dispensation is in comparison to laicization, in his commentary on the story:

"DISPENSATION"? AP has been talking about the priest’s "removal" but not about a "dispensation".  What dispensation?  Dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state?  That is not the same as the "removal" implied in dismissal from the clerical state, which is a punishment.  Of course the half-informed scribblers of AP probably don’t understand this.  But, dear reader, this was an interesting line in the letter, if that is what it actually says in Latin.  As I read these things, here is what comes to mind.  And this is where the AP’s desires fall apart in this case.  In the 60’s and 70’s hordes of priests simply left ministry or, if they requested a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, they were often caused to wait a great deal of time – often a decade or more – until the priest was older and had a change to reflect – with the hope that somehow they might be recovered as priests.  Clearly this case is more complicated because the priest concerned had harmed children.  But back in the day, the standard operating procedure was to try to save priests from quitting.  Therefore, when a petition for dispensation had been made, the Congregation followed their standard operating procedure.

This is an excellent point. When we consider that in the 1980s, the CDF was only involved if the case involved solicitation in the confessional, the job to keep the priest in line fell to the Bishop, John Cummins, who appears to shamefully failed in his duties. Dispensation (the removal from obligations) is not the same thing as the penalty of laicization (the forbidding of the priest to practice his ministry). The priest was asking to be removed from the vows of celibacy and the like. Certainly this would be a scandal, and if the CDF had given a dispensation, I have no doubt that today the story would have been that the priest was “rewarded” for his actions (much as some say Cardinal Law was “rewarded” for his actions when he was “encouraged” to retire from one of the most powerful and influential dioceses in the United States and wound up being nothing more than a glorified pastor of an obscure church in Rome).

Any old stick will do to bash the Catholic Church.

“Defrocking” and Penalties

The media has been reporting about how certain priests were not “defrocked” (a false term) but it overlooks the fact that penalties can be exacted which forbid the priest from practicing their ministries which do not require laicization (which is limited to certain cases).

Whatever the penalty may be, the Church operates under the principle of law. It does not arbitrarily throw penalties about. The possibility of the accused being innocent is recognized. Investigations do need to be carried out, and the penalties need to fit the crime

In 2001, the Church did make changes to the rules in order to eliminate loopholes abusers could hide behind. Processes were streamlined and in severe cases, the CDF could eliminate the statue of limitations (ordinarily ten years after the abused minor reaches the age of 18).

The Double Standard

The ironic thing is, the Church stands condemned for not doing what it was (wrongly) accused of doing in the Inquisition… arbitrarily inflicting punishment on individuals without trial. So which is it? If the Church should be arbitrary, there is no cause for complaint when the Church is (falsely) accused of arbitrarily punishing during the Inquisition. If it is to take time and fairly investigate, then it also applies to priests accused of abuse.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the issue is that the Church is being attacked with the intent of undermining the support of the faithful. Whenever one story is debunked, another will keep on coming, with the intent of making the defenders weary and the average man in the pews thinking there must be some truth simply due to the sheer volume of the attacks.

Yet the fact that the reports are continually debunked should give the reader pause. If the attacks are continually shoddy and based on interpretation without proof to back it up, the veracity of the accuser should be investigated. If the media is continually shown to be misrepresenting the case against the Pope, shouldn’t we perhaps demand they prove the charge of guilt instead of demanding the Pope prove his innocence?

Perhaps we should even investigate the motives of the accusers from the media.

Of course it won't happen.  When a person is tried in the media, the accused is "guilty until proven innocent" and the accused is never innocent.

Because of this, my fellow Catholics should remember this: rash judgment is a sin.  We are obligated to be informed before passing judgment on another person… even the Pope.

Change of Tactics: Taking Offense at our Being Offended

I'm noticing a change of tactics on the internet. With the NYT essentially discredited, except among the mob, I am seeing an approach of "taking offense with our being offended."  Essentially, the fact that many Catholics did take offense with the attempts to smear the Pope is being twisted into meaning that Catholics didn't care when abuse happened, but only care because the Pope is the target.

This is a false charge.

The cases in which the Pope was attacked involved cases where the case had long since been resolved but the media had insinuated that the cases had taken a long time to resolve because of the actions of Pope Benedict XVI.

Yes, there have been abusers among the priests.  Yes I am sure that some of them have escaped the dragnet going through the Church.  Yes I believe that a hundred years from now, some abuser will have found his way through the safeguards the Church may have set in place.  It is the tragic consequence of sin that some men may seek to use the priesthood to carry out vile acts.

However, just because Catholics are ashamed of those abusers and the bishops who concealed the problem rather than coming forward with it does not mean we forfeit the right to demand a truthful reporting of the scandals when they come forward.

The attacks of the New York Times and London papers, as well as the smaller papers who carried these stories, did not report these stories truthfully.  American libel laws, concerning a "public figure" makes it unlikely that the NYT will ever suffer legal consequences for their actions of course [New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan established that the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth ("actual malice") — which makes it almost impossible to prove].

Catholics have a right to be angry at the gross misconduct of the media in this case.  This does not mean we don't care about the fact that victims suffered.  It means we do not believe that the abuse cases which exist permits the Church to be treated unjustly.

I expect that ultimately we will see the myth of "the silence of Benedict XVI" arise despite the truth.  However, why not watch the comments in the various internet discussions.  How many times will the accusation come that we do not care about the victims, but only for protecting the Pope?

What scares me the most of this sort of attack is how closely it mirrors the statement of a European Ruler in the 1930s.  "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

That ruler was Adolf Hitler

Change of Tactics: Taking Offense at our Being Offended

I'm noticing a change of tactics on the internet. With the NYT essentially discredited, except among the mob, I am seeing an approach of "taking offense with our being offended."  Essentially, the fact that many Catholics did take offense with the attempts to smear the Pope is being twisted into meaning that Catholics didn't care when abuse happened, but only care because the Pope is the target.

This is a false charge.

The cases in which the Pope was attacked involved cases where the case had long since been resolved but the media had insinuated that the cases had taken a long time to resolve because of the actions of Pope Benedict XVI.

Yes, there have been abusers among the priests.  Yes I am sure that some of them have escaped the dragnet going through the Church.  Yes I believe that a hundred years from now, some abuser will have found his way through the safeguards the Church may have set in place.  It is the tragic consequence of sin that some men may seek to use the priesthood to carry out vile acts.

However, just because Catholics are ashamed of those abusers and the bishops who concealed the problem rather than coming forward with it does not mean we forfeit the right to demand a truthful reporting of the scandals when they come forward.

The attacks of the New York Times and London papers, as well as the smaller papers who carried these stories, did not report these stories truthfully.  American libel laws, concerning a "public figure" makes it unlikely that the NYT will ever suffer legal consequences for their actions of course [New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan established that the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth ("actual malice") — which makes it almost impossible to prove].

Catholics have a right to be angry at the gross misconduct of the media in this case.  This does not mean we don't care about the fact that victims suffered.  It means we do not believe that the abuse cases which exist permits the Church to be treated unjustly.

I expect that ultimately we will see the myth of "the silence of Benedict XVI" arise despite the truth.  However, why not watch the comments in the various internet discussions.  How many times will the accusation come that we do not care about the victims, but only for protecting the Pope?

What scares me the most of this sort of attack is how closely it mirrors the statement of a European Ruler in the 1930s.  "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

That ruler was Adolf Hitler

An Enemy is a Friend Who Wants to Kill You? Reflections on Noonan's Defense of the Media

Sources: Peggy Noonan: The Catholic Church's Catastrophe - WSJ.com

Anti-Benedict Media Sharks: Best Friends *and* Enemies? | Blogs | NCRegister.com

Peggy Noonan is a Catholic, former Reagan speech writer and an author (she wrote a book on John Paul II) who generally seems to be loyal to the Church.  So when it comes to her criticisms, it is clearly a different case than the New York Times or the attacks of "Cafeteria Catholics."

Reading her article, The Catholic Church's Catastrophe I am inclined to think that she fundamentally misses the point regarding Catholic's anger over the recent attacks.

Her thesis seems to be essentially:

In both the U.S. and Europe, the scandal was dug up and made famous by the press. This has aroused resentment among church leaders, who this week accused journalists of spreading "gossip," of going into "attack mode" and showing "bias."

But this is not true, or to the degree it is true, it is irrelevant. All sorts of people have all sorts of motives, but the fact is that the press—the journalistic establishment in the U.S. and Europe—has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on this issue. Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers. The church shouldn't be saying j'accuse but thank you.

This is the fallacy known as Non causa pro causa. The reason I think she is wrong is that she makes an error over what the case is about.  It is not about denying any sort of abuse took place.  It is not about the fact that some bishops did horrible wrong in kicking it under the carpet instead of following the Church rules on the subject at the time the abuse was known.  It is not even about whether some cases were handled in a way slower than should have been.

The reason there is anger from Catholics over the media bias is that in the recent news stories of Milwaukee, Munich and Arizona, there was a concerted effort to attack the person of Pope Benedict XVI with no evidence in favor of, and in fact much evidence against, their claim.

Noonan, in attributing anger over the false attacks against the Pope as anger over reporting abuse at all is attributing a non-cause as a cause.

An Enemy Is A Friend Who Wants To Kill You

I also think Noonan errs over the claim that the media forced "the Church" to deal with the issues.  She says:

Without this pressure—without the famous 2002 Boston Globe Spotlight series with its monumental detailing of the sex abuse scandals in just one state, Massachusetts—the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

However, the facts are against her.  In Milwaukee, the case was moving forward until the time of the death of the defendant.  In Arizona, the priests accused were suspended and barred from priestly ministry and had appealed the verdict, taking several years to resolve. In Munich, the vicar general made a decision on his own behalf without consulting then Archbishop Ratzinger.

Indeed, Noonan seems to be making a fallacy of equivocation here.  "The Church" was indeed working on this before the 2002 scandal of Cardinal Law.  She could perhaps say that the Church in America was forced to confront the issue, but this is a far different issue than the accusing of Pope Benedict.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

The thing is, the Church operates under the principle of Subsidiarity, which is described in the Catechism as:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

In the idea of subsidiarity, the higher gets involved in the affairs of the lower when there is a failure in the lower to police itself.  This is what the Church did, once reports of the abuse began crossing its desk.  It reformed its former rules on the subject.

One could make a case that certain media reports helped alert the Magisterium to a breakdown in subsidiarity in the lower levels in America, however, I suspect that the media did not have as big a role as Noonan thinks.

The media may have publicized it.  However, it does not follow that they caused the investigations to begin.  The issue of course is the objectivity of the media.  There were 3,000 cases dating back to 1950 which had to be investigated.  Much of the media had made it sound as if there were many more cases annually.

If The Media Is Alarmed Over Abuse, Why Does It Ignore the Largest Offender?

I think it is a valid charge that the public schools has a exponentially larger number of cases of sexual abuse of minors, and doesn't pick up a fraction of the coverage, even though the Church has put in place of protections the public schools still lack.  Such behavior speaks against concern for victims of sexual abuse and speaks more for bias in the media in an attempt to attack the whole Church.

This is not a tu quoque of course.  The evils in the Public schools do not make for a defense of abusers in the Church.  However, if the media is concerned about the children, why does it continue to report on old cases within the Church instead of reporting on the ongoing problems within the public schools and the utter lack of reform and the ongoing practices which the Church is in the process of eliminating.

The fact that the media continues to report on cases from the 1950-2000 era even though the Church has reformed itself and is clearing the backlog of cases, and ignores the schools utter lack of reform seems to indicate an agenda.

If the Church Makes a Policy Change and Nobody Reports it, is it still the fault of the Church?

That kind of coverage was not helpful, and in fact obscured the real issues to be dealt with.  The Church made a careful investigation at the time the media was making accusations of stonewalling, and policies were enacted.  People with homosexual tendencies were restricted based on the investigation into those most likely to be victimized.  Rules were made concerning the policies to be carried out in parishes and dioceses.

Much of the time, the media made much of the charges, but said almost nothing of the Church actions in response to the abuse.  Were it not for the Catholic media reporting, nobody would have been aware that the Church had acted.

The Media is Hardly a "Friend"

Mark Shea writes an article about the view that the media is the friend of the Church which brings home all the flaws of the defense of the media in the latest frenzy.  In it, he writes:

Look.  I can grant that *God*, who orders all things for the good of those in Christ Jesus, can use bitter enemies of the Church to bring about redemption and healing.  But please: let’s make up our mind.  Are journalists who do slipshod hatchet jobs on Benedict “the Church’s best friend” or are they “enemies of His people”?  I think it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that, whatever God may have in mind, the authors of this war on Benedict do not regard themselves as “best friends of the Church” and that the self-congratulation of journalists for their shoddy reportage is as repulsive as the self-congratulation of abusers who lectured their victims to sit there, shut up and take it due to the abusers’ sanctity as priests and as mediators of Truth.  Spare me.

It is an excellent point.  The Holy Week attacks on the Pope were not done with the good of the Church in mind.  The attacks attempted to link the culpability of those who had in fact done evil (the abusers) with Pope Benedict XVI — without a shred of proof.

Shea goes on to write:

But please. This group of frenzied MSM sharks bent on destroying Benedict and engaging in their annual Holy Week Church Bash on the flimsiest charges are not the Church’s"friends”, nor do they give a tinker’s damn about the good of the Church or abused children who are not usefully Catholic.  You might as well tell me that Mehmet Ali Acga (whom these sharks did not fail to consult for his expert opinion) was just trying to help John Paul II grow closer to Christ Crucified when he shot him.  Jimmy Akin has methodically taken apart the NY Times crapalicious reporting.  Real “friends” at the Times (London and New York) would acknowledge they did a lousy job and apologize (as for instance, NBC did when they libeled the Pope as a child molester).  Enemies, however, admit nothing.  And enemies of the Church is just what these people act like.  God will, of course, bring life out of the sins of pervert priests, bad bishops *and* bad reporters.  But with the exception of a few journalists with actual integrity and knowledge of the facts like John Allen, the spectacle leading up to the annual MSM Bash Christianity for Holy Week Fest has been a depressingly ignorant and ideology-driven affair.  To be sure, what the MSM meant for evil, God means to turn to good.  But they do indeed, largely mean to do evil in this recent spate of hatchet jobs on Benedict.

This is the difference between enemies and friends.  If the attacks were made in good faith, those who made these reports would have acknowledged their errors and corrected them.  The media in these cases did not do this.

Conclusion: Why Noonan Erred

This is why Noonan has erred in her claims that the media is the friend of the Church, even though she seems to seriously believe it.  By falsely linking the justified investigations of actual abusers with the attempts to insinuate Pope Benedict XVI was guilty, she makes a false accusation that those of us who are angered at the attacks on the Pope are actually angry that abuse was reported at all.

The truth is, we would not be angered at objective reporting, and the admission of errors made in this reporting.  We do object to the smearing of our Pope and the attempts to push an ideology onto the Church using the abuse cases as an excuse [The inevitable calls for women priests and the end of celibacy among other things].

Shea is correct: God may use these attacks for good (it certainly woke up American Catholics to the problems within the American Church).  However, let's knock off the claim that the media did good because change happened.  That's a post hoc fallacy.  Change happened because the Church cared about what happened, and change was happening even before the 2003-2004 reporting of the abuse scandals.

[Edited to correct a typo which changed the meaning of one sentence from what I intended]

An Enemy is a Friend Who Wants to Kill You? Reflections on Noonan's Defense of the Media

Sources: Peggy Noonan: The Catholic Church's Catastrophe - WSJ.com

Anti-Benedict Media Sharks: Best Friends *and* Enemies? | Blogs | NCRegister.com

Peggy Noonan is a Catholic, former Reagan speech writer and an author (she wrote a book on John Paul II) who generally seems to be loyal to the Church.  So when it comes to her criticisms, it is clearly a different case than the New York Times or the attacks of "Cafeteria Catholics."

Reading her article, The Catholic Church's Catastrophe I am inclined to think that she fundamentally misses the point regarding Catholic's anger over the recent attacks.

Her thesis seems to be essentially:

In both the U.S. and Europe, the scandal was dug up and made famous by the press. This has aroused resentment among church leaders, who this week accused journalists of spreading "gossip," of going into "attack mode" and showing "bias."

But this is not true, or to the degree it is true, it is irrelevant. All sorts of people have all sorts of motives, but the fact is that the press—the journalistic establishment in the U.S. and Europe—has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on this issue. Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers. The church shouldn't be saying j'accuse but thank you.

This is the fallacy known as Non causa pro causa. The reason I think she is wrong is that she makes an error over what the case is about.  It is not about denying any sort of abuse took place.  It is not about the fact that some bishops did horrible wrong in kicking it under the carpet instead of following the Church rules on the subject at the time the abuse was known.  It is not even about whether some cases were handled in a way slower than should have been.

The reason there is anger from Catholics over the media bias is that in the recent news stories of Milwaukee, Munich and Arizona, there was a concerted effort to attack the person of Pope Benedict XVI with no evidence in favor of, and in fact much evidence against, their claim.

Noonan, in attributing anger over the false attacks against the Pope as anger over reporting abuse at all is attributing a non-cause as a cause.

An Enemy Is A Friend Who Wants To Kill You

I also think Noonan errs over the claim that the media forced "the Church" to deal with the issues.  She says:

Without this pressure—without the famous 2002 Boston Globe Spotlight series with its monumental detailing of the sex abuse scandals in just one state, Massachusetts—the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

However, the facts are against her.  In Milwaukee, the case was moving forward until the time of the death of the defendant.  In Arizona, the priests accused were suspended and barred from priestly ministry and had appealed the verdict, taking several years to resolve. In Munich, the vicar general made a decision on his own behalf without consulting then Archbishop Ratzinger.

Indeed, Noonan seems to be making a fallacy of equivocation here.  "The Church" was indeed working on this before the 2002 scandal of Cardinal Law.  She could perhaps say that the Church in America was forced to confront the issue, but this is a far different issue than the accusing of Pope Benedict.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

The thing is, the Church operates under the principle of Subsidiarity, which is described in the Catechism as:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

In the idea of subsidiarity, the higher gets involved in the affairs of the lower when there is a failure in the lower to police itself.  This is what the Church did, once reports of the abuse began crossing its desk.  It reformed its former rules on the subject.

One could make a case that certain media reports helped alert the Magisterium to a breakdown in subsidiarity in the lower levels in America, however, I suspect that the media did not have as big a role as Noonan thinks.

The media may have publicized it.  However, it does not follow that they caused the investigations to begin.  The issue of course is the objectivity of the media.  There were 3,000 cases dating back to 1950 which had to be investigated.  Much of the media had made it sound as if there were many more cases annually.

If The Media Is Alarmed Over Abuse, Why Does It Ignore the Largest Offender?

I think it is a valid charge that the public schools has a exponentially larger number of cases of sexual abuse of minors, and doesn't pick up a fraction of the coverage, even though the Church has put in place of protections the public schools still lack.  Such behavior speaks against concern for victims of sexual abuse and speaks more for bias in the media in an attempt to attack the whole Church.

This is not a tu quoque of course.  The evils in the Public schools do not make for a defense of abusers in the Church.  However, if the media is concerned about the children, why does it continue to report on old cases within the Church instead of reporting on the ongoing problems within the public schools and the utter lack of reform and the ongoing practices which the Church is in the process of eliminating.

The fact that the media continues to report on cases from the 1950-2000 era even though the Church has reformed itself and is clearing the backlog of cases, and ignores the schools utter lack of reform seems to indicate an agenda.

If the Church Makes a Policy Change and Nobody Reports it, is it still the fault of the Church?

That kind of coverage was not helpful, and in fact obscured the real issues to be dealt with.  The Church made a careful investigation at the time the media was making accusations of stonewalling, and policies were enacted.  People with homosexual tendencies were restricted based on the investigation into those most likely to be victimized.  Rules were made concerning the policies to be carried out in parishes and dioceses.

Much of the time, the media made much of the charges, but said almost nothing of the Church actions in response to the abuse.  Were it not for the Catholic media reporting, nobody would have been aware that the Church had acted.

The Media is Hardly a "Friend"

Mark Shea writes an article about the view that the media is the friend of the Church which brings home all the flaws of the defense of the media in the latest frenzy.  In it, he writes:

Look.  I can grant that *God*, who orders all things for the good of those in Christ Jesus, can use bitter enemies of the Church to bring about redemption and healing.  But please: let’s make up our mind.  Are journalists who do slipshod hatchet jobs on Benedict “the Church’s best friend” or are they “enemies of His people”?  I think it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that, whatever God may have in mind, the authors of this war on Benedict do not regard themselves as “best friends of the Church” and that the self-congratulation of journalists for their shoddy reportage is as repulsive as the self-congratulation of abusers who lectured their victims to sit there, shut up and take it due to the abusers’ sanctity as priests and as mediators of Truth.  Spare me.

It is an excellent point.  The Holy Week attacks on the Pope were not done with the good of the Church in mind.  The attacks attempted to link the culpability of those who had in fact done evil (the abusers) with Pope Benedict XVI — without a shred of proof.

Shea goes on to write:

But please. This group of frenzied MSM sharks bent on destroying Benedict and engaging in their annual Holy Week Church Bash on the flimsiest charges are not the Church’s"friends”, nor do they give a tinker’s damn about the good of the Church or abused children who are not usefully Catholic.  You might as well tell me that Mehmet Ali Acga (whom these sharks did not fail to consult for his expert opinion) was just trying to help John Paul II grow closer to Christ Crucified when he shot him.  Jimmy Akin has methodically taken apart the NY Times crapalicious reporting.  Real “friends” at the Times (London and New York) would acknowledge they did a lousy job and apologize (as for instance, NBC did when they libeled the Pope as a child molester).  Enemies, however, admit nothing.  And enemies of the Church is just what these people act like.  God will, of course, bring life out of the sins of pervert priests, bad bishops *and* bad reporters.  But with the exception of a few journalists with actual integrity and knowledge of the facts like John Allen, the spectacle leading up to the annual MSM Bash Christianity for Holy Week Fest has been a depressingly ignorant and ideology-driven affair.  To be sure, what the MSM meant for evil, God means to turn to good.  But they do indeed, largely mean to do evil in this recent spate of hatchet jobs on Benedict.

This is the difference between enemies and friends.  If the attacks were made in good faith, those who made these reports would have acknowledged their errors and corrected them.  The media in these cases did not do this.

Conclusion: Why Noonan Erred

This is why Noonan has erred in her claims that the media is the friend of the Church, even though she seems to seriously believe it.  By falsely linking the justified investigations of actual abusers with the attempts to insinuate Pope Benedict XVI was guilty, she makes a false accusation that those of us who are angered at the attacks on the Pope are actually angry that abuse was reported at all.

The truth is, we would not be angered at objective reporting, and the admission of errors made in this reporting.  We do object to the smearing of our Pope and the attempts to push an ideology onto the Church using the abuse cases as an excuse [The inevitable calls for women priests and the end of celibacy among other things].

Shea is correct: God may use these attacks for good (it certainly woke up American Catholics to the problems within the American Church).  However, let's knock off the claim that the media did good because change happened.  That's a post hoc fallacy.  Change happened because the Church cared about what happened, and change was happening even before the 2003-2004 reporting of the abuse scandals.

[Edited to correct a typo which changed the meaning of one sentence from what I intended]

Milwaukee Canonical Judge Speaks On What NYT Ignored

Source: Catholic Anchor Online » Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy

With all the smears about the Milwaukee case, isn't it odd that nobody actually sought to contact the people who took part in the case to defrock Fr. Murphy?

I find this article interesting, as it makes more clear information which seemed muddled when taken out of context (learning that it was the Rota which had the competency to oversee the case prior to 2001 was new to me)

Fr. Thomas Brundage, who was the judge [In the sense of the canonical trial… not civil prosecution] in the case of Fr. Murphy has come forward to speak about his involvement in the case.  He describes his purpose in doing so:

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

I find it interesting to note that contrary to the claims of the NYT, Fr. Brundage considers that his own actions have been misquoted in this feeding frenzy of the media, and explicitly denies that the CDF had halted the case.  Let's look at what he says about the case.

Considering the Claims the Vatican Halted the Trial

The NYT had alleged that Fr. Murphy wrote to the Vatican and the Vatican stopped the trial.  Fr. Brundage contradicts this claim directly.

In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home

So we see some falsehoods about the allegations that Fr. Murphy wrote to then Cardinal Ratzinger in January and then Ratzinger had the trial ended.  Fr. Brundage points out that in the summer of 1998, the deposition was scheduled, but Fr. Murphy's doctor said he could not travel more than 20 miles due to health… far too short a travel range to bring him to Milwaukee.

He also denies that it was the CDF that caused the trial to end.  Fr. Brundage says:

Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.

Notice that it was Archbishop Weakland telling the CDF that he gave the order to Fr. Brundage to abate the trial.  Also that Fr. Brundage says that when Fr. Murphy died, he was still a defendant, and that Archbishop Weakland had not told him to abate the trial.  Indeed, if the archbishop had told him to abate the trial, he would have appealed to Rome.

This is quite damning for the NYT indeed.  So much for the accusation that now Pope Benedict XVI halted this.

NYT Wrongly Attributes Documents to Fr. Brundage

I find it significant that Fr. Brundage flat out denies that the documents attributed to him were written by him.  He writes:

With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. 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. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct. [Emphasis added]

I find it rather damning that the NYT never bothered to ask any questions of the person they cited as a source.  In most places, this would be considered negligence.  If the story is so badly flawed in facts, it casts doubts on the accuracy of the whole thing.  Combined with the rejection of the idea that the CDF prevented this, the NYT seems to be either guilty of gross incompetence or malicious intent.

Conclusion

The story is being denied by both Rome and those involved in America.  It seems we have a problematic scenario:

1. Certain individuals, who oppose the Church and the Pope, have created a false story.
2. Their news organizations, through neglect or through malice gave the ok for these stories to go forward.
3. Numerous news organizations repeated the stories of this newspaper
4. People with a hatred of the Church took advantage of this story to promote their personal agendas.

I don't doubt some will allege some huge Church conspiracy and that Fr. Brundage is lying.  However, this requires proof… something the NYT has yet to provide.

Milwaukee Canonical Judge Speaks On What NYT Ignored

Source: Catholic Anchor Online » Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy

With all the smears about the Milwaukee case, isn't it odd that nobody actually sought to contact the people who took part in the case to defrock Fr. Murphy?

I find this article interesting, as it makes more clear information which seemed muddled when taken out of context (learning that it was the Rota which had the competency to oversee the case prior to 2001 was new to me)

Fr. Thomas Brundage, who was the judge [In the sense of the canonical trial… not civil prosecution] in the case of Fr. Murphy has come forward to speak about his involvement in the case.  He describes his purpose in doing so:

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

I find it interesting to note that contrary to the claims of the NYT, Fr. Brundage considers that his own actions have been misquoted in this feeding frenzy of the media, and explicitly denies that the CDF had halted the case.  Let's look at what he says about the case.

Considering the Claims the Vatican Halted the Trial

The NYT had alleged that Fr. Murphy wrote to the Vatican and the Vatican stopped the trial.  Fr. Brundage contradicts this claim directly.

In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home

So we see some falsehoods about the allegations that Fr. Murphy wrote to then Cardinal Ratzinger in January and then Ratzinger had the trial ended.  Fr. Brundage points out that in the summer of 1998, the deposition was scheduled, but Fr. Murphy's doctor said he could not travel more than 20 miles due to health… far too short a travel range to bring him to Milwaukee.

He also denies that it was the CDF that caused the trial to end.  Fr. Brundage says:

Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.

Notice that it was Archbishop Weakland telling the CDF that he gave the order to Fr. Brundage to abate the trial.  Also that Fr. Brundage says that when Fr. Murphy died, he was still a defendant, and that Archbishop Weakland had not told him to abate the trial.  Indeed, if the archbishop had told him to abate the trial, he would have appealed to Rome.

This is quite damning for the NYT indeed.  So much for the accusation that now Pope Benedict XVI halted this.

NYT Wrongly Attributes Documents to Fr. Brundage

I find it significant that Fr. Brundage flat out denies that the documents attributed to him were written by him.  He writes:

With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. 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. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct. [Emphasis added]

I find it rather damning that the NYT never bothered to ask any questions of the person they cited as a source.  In most places, this would be considered negligence.  If the story is so badly flawed in facts, it casts doubts on the accuracy of the whole thing.  Combined with the rejection of the idea that the CDF prevented this, the NYT seems to be either guilty of gross incompetence or malicious intent.

Conclusion

The story is being denied by both Rome and those involved in America.  It seems we have a problematic scenario:

1. Certain individuals, who oppose the Church and the Pope, have created a false story.
2. Their news organizations, through neglect or through malice gave the ok for these stories to go forward.
3. Numerous news organizations repeated the stories of this newspaper
4. People with a hatred of the Church took advantage of this story to promote their personal agendas.

I don't doubt some will allege some huge Church conspiracy and that Fr. Brundage is lying.  However, this requires proof… something the NYT has yet to provide.