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.

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.

Contradictory Reports: The Case of Fr. Jeyapaul

Sources: Vatican covered up abuse in Minnesota, lawyers say - CNN.com,

The Associated Press: Priest accused of US abuse won't fight extradition,

Vatican lawyer's statement on Indian priest | National Catholic Reporter

I find it interesting to see how the newest reports of abuse come tailored to overcome the challenges to the previous story.  In face to the rejections of the Milwaukee story, we now see a case come forward which took place after the new rules came into effect, seeking to imply that the old practices are still in play.

The facts of the matter seem to be somewhat different.

What is Alleged

The allegations is that priest Fr. Jeyapaul abused two teenage girls during his time in Minnesota.  One of them was reported to the diocese just before he left for India, while the other seems to have come forward after the priest had left America.

The claim is that the CDF was notified of the abuse but did nothing.  CNN and ABC reports that Cardinal Levada did nothing.

What is not Mentioned

What the stories do not mention is that when the Vatican was notified, it contacted the diocese in India and recommended the priest be laicized.  Most of the stories do not mention the priest is not contesting extradition to the United States to stand trial.  Nor do they mention that it was the Vatican which reported to authorities where he was to be found. 

It seems the diocese in India did not laicize the priest but gave a lesser penalty.

The Vatican attorney in the US, Jeffery Lana made this statement:

The decision regarding the canonical penalties imposed upon Father Jeyapaul was made by the Bishop of Ootacamund, whose diocese is located in the Nilgiris district of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested in this matter that Father Jeyapaul agree to laicization, demonstrating that the Congregation believed that the accusations were serious enough to merit dismissal from the clerical state. However, as a matter of longstanding canon law, such decisions are made by the local bishop, who is deemed to be generally in the best position to adjudicate the case relating to the priest in question.

It is important to note that the canonical proceeding involving Father Jeyapaul was wholly separate from any pending civil or criminal proceeding. The Holy See has cooperated with the requests of law enforcement authorities seeking the extradition of Father Jeyapaul to the United States, and in fact provided his exact location in India to assist such efforts.

It is interesting that these facts were not reported in the Mainstream Media.

The Significance for the Media

The media is reporting something untrue [The Vatican was covering up] as if it were true, omitting facts which go against the attacks on the Pope and the Vatican.  This is entirely unethical of course.  Fair and accurate reporting requires giving all the facts, and not merely one slanted side of it to promote an agenda.

The fact that the reporting continues to "evolve" in the face of news stories being debunked indicates not a concern for victims of abuse, but a desire to attack the moral authority of the Catholic Church.

The fact that the media has not really reported the actions of the Church, but instead seek to employ an argument from silence fallacy [The Minnesota diocese did not know the events in India.  Therefore the Vatican did nothing] to claim inaction or coverup. 

These two charges are contradictory of course.  The first would be inaction.  The second would be action to conceal.  Meanwhile reports indicate the Vatican neither was inactive nor concealing.

The media could have been defenders of the truth if it had reported this story fairly.  In that case it would have done a good service in helping the Church be aware of further repairs to the system it needed to implement.  Instead it attempted to portray this whole incident as the fault of the Vatican.

This leaves us with this question: How much trust can we place in the media to fairly and accurately report abuse allegations?

If the media is supposed to be serving us by reporting these things, I believe we can validly ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who polices the police?)

Significance in Legal Terms

Also in terms of the accused priest, it is important to make sure justice is done.  We have reports of abuse.  It has not yet been established the abuse is true.  If it is true, of course justice requires the priest should face the legal consequences.  If it is not true, justice requires his name be cleared.  Trial by media should not be tolerated however.

Significance for the Church

What troubles me in this case is that there seems to be more room for reform of the current system.  That a bishop can choose to ignore what the CDF suggests in terms of laicization indicates that the Code of Canon Law can use reform to prevent this in the future.  If the priest was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, clearly the diocese in India erred in the position he was given.  However, the Vatican did not cover up, though it would need to strengthen its laws for the future.

It is good to see they did recommend laicization and to see they did cooperate with the authorities to bring the priest forward.  However, this case indicates that perhaps we need to institute a policy where the CDF can override the decision of the Bishop in such cases. 

Of course we need to be certain that such an action does not remove the rights of the accused for a fair hearing as well, and does not create a bottleneck which slows cases down so much that the delay enables injustice.

Conclusion

Contrary to media claims, this is not a failure on the part of the Church.  Rather it shows us how the system currently works, and gives us evidence of further reforms the system needs to make in terms of procedure and tightening up canon law.  The Church needs to investigate where weakness is in the current system and make sure future cases cannot exploit the same situation.

Contradictory Reports: The Case of Fr. Jeyapaul

Sources: Vatican covered up abuse in Minnesota, lawyers say - CNN.com,

The Associated Press: Priest accused of US abuse won't fight extradition,

Vatican lawyer's statement on Indian priest | National Catholic Reporter

I find it interesting to see how the newest reports of abuse come tailored to overcome the challenges to the previous story.  In face to the rejections of the Milwaukee story, we now see a case come forward which took place after the new rules came into effect, seeking to imply that the old practices are still in play.

The facts of the matter seem to be somewhat different.

What is Alleged

The allegations is that priest Fr. Jeyapaul abused two teenage girls during his time in Minnesota.  One of them was reported to the diocese just before he left for India, while the other seems to have come forward after the priest had left America.

The claim is that the CDF was notified of the abuse but did nothing.  CNN and ABC reports that Cardinal Levada did nothing.

What is not Mentioned

What the stories do not mention is that when the Vatican was notified, it contacted the diocese in India and recommended the priest be laicized.  Most of the stories do not mention the priest is not contesting extradition to the United States to stand trial.  Nor do they mention that it was the Vatican which reported to authorities where he was to be found. 

It seems the diocese in India did not laicize the priest but gave a lesser penalty.

The Vatican attorney in the US, Jeffery Lana made this statement:

The decision regarding the canonical penalties imposed upon Father Jeyapaul was made by the Bishop of Ootacamund, whose diocese is located in the Nilgiris district of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested in this matter that Father Jeyapaul agree to laicization, demonstrating that the Congregation believed that the accusations were serious enough to merit dismissal from the clerical state. However, as a matter of longstanding canon law, such decisions are made by the local bishop, who is deemed to be generally in the best position to adjudicate the case relating to the priest in question.

It is important to note that the canonical proceeding involving Father Jeyapaul was wholly separate from any pending civil or criminal proceeding. The Holy See has cooperated with the requests of law enforcement authorities seeking the extradition of Father Jeyapaul to the United States, and in fact provided his exact location in India to assist such efforts.

It is interesting that these facts were not reported in the Mainstream Media.

The Significance for the Media

The media is reporting something untrue [The Vatican was covering up] as if it were true, omitting facts which go against the attacks on the Pope and the Vatican.  This is entirely unethical of course.  Fair and accurate reporting requires giving all the facts, and not merely one slanted side of it to promote an agenda.

The fact that the reporting continues to "evolve" in the face of news stories being debunked indicates not a concern for victims of abuse, but a desire to attack the moral authority of the Catholic Church.

The fact that the media has not really reported the actions of the Church, but instead seek to employ an argument from silence fallacy [The Minnesota diocese did not know the events in India.  Therefore the Vatican did nothing] to claim inaction or coverup. 

These two charges are contradictory of course.  The first would be inaction.  The second would be action to conceal.  Meanwhile reports indicate the Vatican neither was inactive nor concealing.

The media could have been defenders of the truth if it had reported this story fairly.  In that case it would have done a good service in helping the Church be aware of further repairs to the system it needed to implement.  Instead it attempted to portray this whole incident as the fault of the Vatican.

This leaves us with this question: How much trust can we place in the media to fairly and accurately report abuse allegations?

If the media is supposed to be serving us by reporting these things, I believe we can validly ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who polices the police?)

Significance in Legal Terms

Also in terms of the accused priest, it is important to make sure justice is done.  We have reports of abuse.  It has not yet been established the abuse is true.  If it is true, of course justice requires the priest should face the legal consequences.  If it is not true, justice requires his name be cleared.  Trial by media should not be tolerated however.

Significance for the Church

What troubles me in this case is that there seems to be more room for reform of the current system.  That a bishop can choose to ignore what the CDF suggests in terms of laicization indicates that the Code of Canon Law can use reform to prevent this in the future.  If the priest was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, clearly the diocese in India erred in the position he was given.  However, the Vatican did not cover up, though it would need to strengthen its laws for the future.

It is good to see they did recommend laicization and to see they did cooperate with the authorities to bring the priest forward.  However, this case indicates that perhaps we need to institute a policy where the CDF can override the decision of the Bishop in such cases. 

Of course we need to be certain that such an action does not remove the rights of the accused for a fair hearing as well, and does not create a bottleneck which slows cases down so much that the delay enables injustice.

Conclusion

Contrary to media claims, this is not a failure on the part of the Church.  Rather it shows us how the system currently works, and gives us evidence of further reforms the system needs to make in terms of procedure and tightening up canon law.  The Church needs to investigate where weakness is in the current system and make sure future cases cannot exploit the same situation.

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]

Needing to do More?

Read more »