The Cathoholic

George Weigel in Newsweek: the Catholic Solution to Abuse

Weigel does it again: In the most recent Newsweek, Weigel, the papal biographer and Catholic commentator provides a counterpoint to the magazine's cover story, which suggests that if women played a larger role in the Catholic Church the headlines that make Catholics cringe might go away. Weigel notes that many women already play a major role in U.S. Catholic institutions, particularly schools and parishes. But he also notes that the solution to clergy sex abuse is for members of the Church--clerical and lay--to be more Catholic. First,  Weigel takes aim at the argument that the unnatural practice of celibacy is at the root of the abuse crisis:

"Sexual abuse is indeed horrible, but there is no empirical evidence that it is a uniquely, predominantly, or even strikingly Catholic problem. The sexual abuse of the young is a global plague. In the United States, some 40 to 60 percent of such abuse takes place within families—often at the hands of live-in boyfriends or the second (or third, or fourth) husband of a child's mother; those cases have nothing to do with celibacy. The case of a married Wilmington, Dela., pediatrician charged with 471 counts of sexual abuse in February has nothing to do with celibacy. Neither did the 290,000 cases of sexual abuse in American public schools between 1991 and 2000, estimated by Charol Shakeshaft of Virginia Commonwealth University. And given the significant level of abuse problems in Christian denominations with married clergy, it's hard to accept the notion that marriage is somehow a barrier against sexually abusive clergy. (Indeed, the idea of reducing marriage to an abuse-prevention program ought to be repulsive.) Sexual abusers throughout the world are overwhelmingly noncelibates."

He acknowledges that the all-male clerical culture may have contributed to the slow response of Church leaders to deal with horrible crimes against children:

"There may be a grain of truth in the suggestion that women's perspectives on these issues would have helped mitigate the Catholic crisis of clerical sexual abuse and episcopal misgovernance: in the past the male clerical culture of Catholicism seems to have blunted in some Catholic clergy a natural and instinctive revulsion at the sexual abuse of the young—a revulsion, it is suggested, that a woman would immediately feel and act upon."

--here, my husband would interject that he would have been perfectly prepared to act against a sexual predator.

But Weigel's main point is that--contrary to the argument that the vow of celibacy and some sick aspect of Catholic culture and doctrine are at the root of the abuse crisis--fidelity to the mission of the Church and priestly vows are the best protection:

"As for doctrine: what ought to be obvious about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is that these grave sins and crimes were acts of infidelity, denials of the truths the church teaches. A priest who takes seriously the vows of his ordination is not a sexual abuser or predator. And if a bishop takes seriously his ordination oath to shepherd the Lord's flock, he will always put the safety of the Master's little ones ahead of concerns about public scandal. Catholic Lite is not the answer to what has essentially been a crisis of fidelity."

Pope Benedict XVI and the Clergy Sex-Abuse Crisis

Earlier this week, readers of The New York Times were treated to several front-page articles alleging that Pope Benedict XVI, before his election as pope and while serving as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had refused to act against a Catholic priest that had molested hundreds of deaf students. I read the first article carefully. Like a previous Times article about another child molester--a German priest, who had served under the authority of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Munich--the lurid the front-page allegations were followed by a confused chronology buried mid-way through the narrative. My thoughts moved from shock to puzzlement: Had the pope actually been informed? When and where? It wasn't easy to pinpoint these facts. No matter, The Times stories were widely published throughout the world and provoked a Vatican response.

Today, two important articles appeared that may provoke yet another Times story that will correct the characterization of papal irresponsibility. The first is a post by Father Raymond de Souza in National Review's The Corner. Father de Souza has sifted through all the documents used to build the Times story on the pope and  Father Murphy, the priest charged with molesting hundreds of deaf students, and makes several important points. Writes Father de Souza:

"The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

 • The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

 • The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover.  He is prima facie not a reliable source.

 • Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland.  Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).  

 • A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false."

The second article defending Pope Benedict XVI in a more measured way appears, of all places, in the New York Times opinion pages. John Allen, the Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, argues that it's important to have historical context for Rome's difficult engagement with clergy sex abuse and concludes that  "to paint Benedict XVI as uniquely villainous doesn’t do justice to his record. The pope may still have much ground to cover, but he deserves credit for how far he’s come."

If you share Father de Souza's's assessment of the Times coverage, let its Public Editor know:

public@nytimes.com

UPDATE: Here is George Weigel's excellent commentary in First Things on the latest allegations against Pope Benedict. Like most of the Catholic commentary defending the Holy Father, Weigel is not excusing episcopal irresponsibility, but he separates reasonable charges for Vatican reform from scurrilous, unjustified attacks.

The priest who served as the judge in the canonical trial against Father Murphy issued his own clarification, noting that while news stories quoted him, not one reporter actually contacted him to review the facts of the case. He noted that the trial had not be canceled at the time of Father Murphy's death, and that he doubted that Pope Benedict--then Cardinal Ratzinger--would have had any knowledge of the case.