The Cathoholic

The New York Times and the Pope--Again

Today's New York Times targeted Pope Benedict XVI.

Phil Lawler provides a timely response to the Times's charges. Keep in mind that Lawler is no apologist for episcopal irresponsibility.

Why Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry: Response to Time Magazine

The cover story title, "Why Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry," ranks as one of the most irritating and ridiculous efforts yet to make the papacy the ultimate target of very understand outrage regarding the Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandal. The Inquisition is brought up in the first paragraph..do we really need additional evidence of papal culpability?

Here is Our Sunday Visitor's publisher, Greg Erlandson's response to the Time cover story:

"The story, written by Jeff Israely (reporting from Rome) and Howard Chua-Eoan, while appearing to be about the sexual abuse crisis, is really a subtly written assault on the papacy itself, making the following case:

1. For the past two centuries, the Vatican has centralized power and authority over the Church, including the declaration of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.
2. This centralization is how it has managed to control its docile flock even as it has lost temporal power.
3. At stake in the sexual abuse crisis is the prestige and power of the papacy and the Church’s own authority.
4. There needs to be some sort of acceptance of personal guilt on the part of Pope Benedict for his actions, despite all he has done to address the crisis.
5. Such an admission of guilt and apology would call into question, however, the “theological impregnability of the papacy” and hasten other changes in the Church that will diminish its size and authority.

The provocative headline of the article  – “Why Being Pope Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry” — makes more sense in this narrative because it yokes the claim of infallibility to the current crisis, making the papacy the center of the abuse story.

The fact that the Pope has apologized repeatedly thus becomes irrelevant for Time magazine — despite the obvious contradiction of the headline — because the apologies are just a public relations strategy to head off a greater challenge.

In laying out this political analysis of the last 200 years of Church history, the article also serves to bolster the case of those lawyers seeking damages from the Vatican for sexual abuse cases that occurred in the United States. Since the Vatican was so centralized and domineering, the question of its liability for the handling of individual local cases becomes more plausible.

Thus, after recounting the many positive steps the Pope has taken, Time still concludes that he is hedging: “He assigned wrongdoing not to the church but to its servants.” This, the magazine suggests, is to protect the Church from legal liability. “The consequences of sin are subject to divine salvation, but the consequences of crime lie within the purview of human judges and entail courts of law, prison, public humiliation and the loss of property.”

Papal biographer, George Weigel,  also provides an  excellent critique of the Time piece:

"It's not easy to understand the decision of Time's editors to run the magazine's current (June 7) cover story, with its cheesy title, "Why Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry." The lengthy essay inside breaks no news; it recycles several lame charges against Benedict XVI that have been flatly denied or effectively rebutted; and it indulges an adolescent literary style (e.g., "mealymouthed declarations buttressed by arcane religious philosophy") that makes one yearn and pine for the days of Henry Luce.

The lengthy story is also poorly sourced, relying (as many such exercises do) on alleged "Vatican insiders" and giving analytic pride of place to the Italian Church historian Alberto Melloni.

As real Vatican insiders know, real Vatican insiders don't give back-stabbing and score-settling sound bites to the American media. That practice is more typically indulged in by clerics far down the Vatican food chain, monsignori who have no real idea of what's happening within the small circle where real decisions get made inside the Leonine Wall, but who are happy to chat up journalists over a cappuccino or a Campari and soda while pretending to a knowledge they don't possess. Such sources can be occasionally amusing; they are almost never authoritative."

Pope's Homily on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Last week I was in Rome, as the Vatican geared up for the closing ceremonies of the Year for Priests. Our pilgrimage group visited the Scavi, where St.Peter's bones are believed to now rest. During a harrowing year of new clergy abuse revelations,  unjust attacks against the Holy Father, and the pope's public apology for priestly crimes, our time of prayer below St.Peter's Basilica was especially moving. A few day's later, Pope Benedict XVI gave his wonderful homily marking the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart. This is well worth reading, especially in the context of this difficult year.

UPDATE: Today, The Catholic Thing published my commentary on this homily, following my return from a recent trip to Rome, where I visited St.Peter's tomb.

Legion of Christ: New Era for Order and Rome

Vatican expert Sandro Magister offers his deep analysis of the recent Vatican statement on the Legion of  Christ and what Pope Benedict has in mind. Magister found these points especially significant

*    The Pope's role

"Benedict XVI sat in on the group's work for an hour and a half, in silence, on the morning of Friday, April 30. Before leaving them, he encouraged those present to make concrete proposals, on the basis of which he would make his decisions.

But this was only the latest action in the role of absolute leadership played by Joseph Ratzinger in the case of the Legionaries of Christ. At the end of 2004, he was the one who ordered an investigation of their founder, Marcial Maciel Degollado, against the general conviction of innocence held by the entire curia at the time, and by Pope John Paul II himself. It was he, as pope, who in 2006 issued the sentence of condemnation against Maciel. It was he who in the summer of 2009 ordered the apostolic visit of the Legion.

*    Blunt statement about Father Maciel's "crimes."

*    Top Legion leadership likely to go.

"The statement also makes a severe and unprecedented judgment of the "system of relationships" constructed around Maciel, of the "silence of the entourage," of the "mechanism of defense" of his disgraceful life.

Writing that "most of the Legionaries were unaware of this life," the statement implicitly affirms that some of them did know about it.

So there will be no indulgence for the "system of power" that closed ranks around Maciel before and after his death, meaning the current central and territorial leaders of the Legion.

In particular, it is completely unrealistic to think that the ax might spare the two supreme leaders, director general Álvaro Corcuera and vicar general Luís Garza Medina."

*    "Reforming" of the Legion a "wager."

"With a great deal of realism, the working document that was discussed did not take for granted the success of the work of reconstruction that the Legion will have to accomplish. About the future, it used the word "wager."

One element of hope - according to the statement - is provided by the "great number of exemplary religious" encountered by the visitors, animated by "authentic zeal for the spread of the Kingdom of God."

But of the 800 priests of the Legion, only about 100 are now deliberately working for a "journey of profound revision." Most of them are still disoriented, traumatized by the revelations about the founder, submissive to the authority of the leaders they see as their only source of stability."

*    An independent commission will be created to study the constitutions of the Legion, and in particular to "review the exercise of authority."

*    Mexican cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, archbishop of Guadalajara--discussed as potential overseer.

*     Benedict "overturns the dominant model of recent reporting on pedophilia."

" Instead of letting its agenda be dictated by the newspapers, instead of responding case by case to the deluge of accusations, this time the Holy See has taken the initiative.

In the case of the Legionaries, it is the media that have to play catch-up with the decisions of the Vatican authorities, and of the pope in the first place. And it is hard to contest these decisions. Distinctively ecclesiastical decisions, which no earthly tribunal may co-opt. Decisions intended not only to punish, but above all to heal, reinforce, purify, reconstruct. In that order of grace of which the Church is treasury and custodian."

Monica Applewhite, Sex abuse expert on Church's learning curve

Here's an interesting piece in the National Catholic Register that captures the insights of Monica Applewhite, an expert who advises institutions like the Church to develop policy and establish screening methods to eradicate sexual abuse. Applewhite is now director of Confianza LLC, a consulting firm specializing in standards of care and the dynamics of abuse in educational and religious environments. Here's a big chunk of her fascinating comments during an interview with the Register's Tim Drake.

The sexual abuse of minors is not particular to the Catholic Church alone, is it?

Unfortunately, sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults happens in all organizations that serve these populations. What is distinctive for the Catholic Church is the saliency of the issue.

Both Catholics and non-Catholics are interested in reading and hearing about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. In some ways, this is fortunate for those of us who advocate for education and prevention because it is an opportunity to address the issue within the Church while bringing to light a society-wide problem most people would prefer not to address.

"Do you have any thoughts on why this has resurfaced at the time it has?

We have been through several cycles of media attention — first in 1985, then in 1992, again in 2002, and now in 2010. It’s not that we have new cases — the majority of the cases under discussion are still those from the ’60s, ’70s and early ’80s — but each time the issue arises we are able to analyze different aspects of the problem that should be addressed, from the harm that is caused, to the discipline for those who offend, to the long-term effects on victims, families and communities, and the need for accountability of leaders.

This new wave of interest and new information seems to be focused on the need for scrutiny of the universal Church, not just the Church of the United States, and that is new. One of the positive outcomes of media consideration of the problem is that with each publicized case, more adults and young people both within the Church and outside of the Church are able to talk about their own experiences.

The current media attention was sparked by cases in Germany and has led thousands of victims of abuse within the Catholic Church of Europe to come forward and report their own experiences. The German Church has set up a hotline, and thousands of people have already called in to report abuse.

I am grateful that the hotline was set up and we can begin to identify the people who have been harmed in this way.

Tell me about your work addressing this issue through Praesidium with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men.

When the bishops of the U.S. issued the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) developed the “Instruments of Hope and Healing.” The male religious superiors of the United States made a decision to hold themselves accountable to outside experts in the field through a system of accreditation for religious. CMSM selected Praesidium Inc. to conduct the accreditation visits and hold the religious communities accountable for 25 standards of excellence.

My role was to oversee the development of the standards, the system of measurement to ensure that standards were met, and the educational program for the major superiors. We were very strict in our interpretation and verification process. I directed the accreditation program through its first three-year cycle.

Is there much of a difference for how these cases are handled by religious institutes vs. dioceses?

Yes and no. Both the dioceses and the religious have committed themselves to reporting abuse to the civil authorities, to responding pastorally to victims and to investigating all abuse allegations.

In these cases, the dioceses are meant to follow the charter, and the religious are to follow the accreditation standards. Religious are also required to follow the charter with respect to prohibiting all public ministry, but this requirement is also in the accreditation standards.

The primary distinction is probably in terms of what happens to the individual priest or religious who is found to have sexually abused a minor. The charter clearly states that clerics who have sexually offended a minor or minors cannot be in any form of public ministry, but the document does not address standards for their supervision if they remain in the priesthood.

Religious accreditation actually has specific standards to address the requirements for supervision, support and accountability system for these men.

In the Church’s handling of this issue, can you tell me what the Church has done right?

The Church in the U.S. is the first large-scale organization to take two important steps toward healing and prevention of future incidents of abuse. We are the first to conduct a full prevalence study to determine how many incidents, how many victims and how many perpetrators of abuse there were from 1950 to 2002.

The John Jay College [of Criminal Justice] conducted this comprehensive research, and it is published on the USCCB website. Anyone who truly wants to know “the problem” we are facing should review the findings.

Secondly, the Roman Church is the first institution of its size to implement a full program of accountability to ensure the implementation of its reform efforts. Again, an outside team, the Gavin Group, has conducted the audits of the dioceses.

Large-scale organizational change, deep cultural change simply does not happen without accountability.

Is there much of a difference between what happens when a priest is accused today and what happened prior to 2002 (when the charter and norms were adopted)?

In most situations, no. The reforms of the Church began long before 2002. As laws changed, as understanding of sexual abuse and sexual offenders developed, so did the procedures of the Church in most local dioceses and communities.

It was 1992 when the bishops first began following the “Five Principles,” which included pastoral outreach to victims, investigations and open communication with communities.

Published in 1992, the bishops’ five principles were:

1) respond promptly to all allegations of abuse,

2) relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for appropriate medical evaluation and intervention,

3) comply with the obligations of civil law as regards reporting of the incident,

4) reach out to the victims and their families, and

5) deal as openly as possible with the members of the community.

What changed in 2002 was a dramatic improvement in uniformity, both within and across dioceses and religious communities. The toughest situations have always been when the allegation is against an extremely talented and charismatic priest, religious or lay minister. These are the situations in any organization that are the most divisive, the most difficult and the most likely to be handled improperly.

When the allegation seems impossible, in the absence of accountability, there is often a temptation to hope the situation will just “go away.”

In 2002, listening to stories of victims who were abused by just this type of offender, the bishops and religious superiors made commitments that would end “the exceptions.” These commitments and the associated accountability also addressed the fact that some leaders had simply elected not to follow the guidance of the five principles, and that also brought greater uniformity to the handling of allegations.

What criticisms remain regarding the Church’s handling of these cases?

Much of the public criticism of the Church’s early handling of cases stems from a lack of knowledge about the historical context of this phenomenon.

I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison.

At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode.
Regarding the work that remains to be done, the most pressing concern for me is the lack of protocols to guide the supervision and accountability for priests and religious who have been accused or found to have sexually offended in the past or who have completed their obligations to the criminal justice system.

There continues to be a belief that aging and the passing of time will render these men safe. I understand we cannot supervise them if they are no longer a priest or religious, but as long as they are, we should strive to know how they spend their time and whether they are upholding the limits that have been placed on them.

Much criticism has been leveled at Pope Benedict XVI. Do you view that criticism as valid?

From my perspective, deep change in the culture of the Vatican began with Cardinal Ratzinger and has been solidified since he became Pope Benedict XVI.

Anti-Catholicism Again: Joseph Bottum looks at coverage of Church scandal

In this week's The Weekly Standard, Joseph Bottom writes about the connection between the drumbeat of headlines about clergy child sex abuse and the long. glorious tradition of ant-Catholicism. Though no apologist for irresponsible bishops and clerical predators, Bottum makes some excellent points about why the Church is the favored scapegoat for liberals. Writes Bottum:

"For almost 500 years now, Catholicism has been an available answer, a mystical key, to that deep, childish, and existentially compelling question: Why aren’t we there yet? Why is progress still unfinished? Why is promise still unfulfilled? Why aren’t we perfect? Why aren’t we changed? 

Despite our rejection of the past, the future still hasn’t arrived. Despite our advances, corruption continues. It needs an explanation. It requires a response. And in every modernizing movement—from Protestant Reformers to French Revolutionaries, Communists to Freudians, Temperance Leaguers and suffragettes to biotechnologists and science-fiction futurists—someone in despair eventually stumbles on the answer: We have been thwarted by the Catholic Church."

Bottum argues that humanity's impatience for a resolution to the problem of evil in the world drives a constant search for the guilty, a search primarily conducted by people who don't believe that Revelation has already given us all the information we need to know to read the tea leaves.

"As it happens, the question Why aren’t we there yet? is, in its way, a biblical question. Christianity spread across the world the Bible’s new idea of history—born from the vision that God is a God who entered time, and time is moving toward a goal. Even modern nonbelievers still somehow believe this part; in important metaphysical ways, their progressive view of the world remains Christian, albeit with Christ stripped out. 

Innumerable books have been written about the good effects of this forward-aiming view of history, from Christopher Dawson’s old Progress and Religion to Rodney Stark’s recent The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. Perhaps not enough has been said, however, about one of its bad effects. As we wait for the Second Coming—or its many secular stand-ins—an odd, hysterical impatience can take hold. We worked so hard, and still the change in human nature didn’t come. Still heaven didn’t get built on earth. Evil must have intervened, and since the past is the evil against which progress fights, what more obvious villain than the Catholic Church, that last-surviving remnant of the ancient darkness?

Welcome to the Year of Our Lord 2010. Welcome to our own odd hysteria.

The best sign of such hysterical moments may be the difficulty of anything sane or sensible being heard in them. As Newsweek noted on April 8, the surveys and studies over the past 30 years show “little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue.” Nonetheless, in 2002, after the last set of revelations, “a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent” of Americans “thought Catholic priests ‘frequently’ abused children.”"

John Haas: Is Child Sex Abuse Just a Catholic Problem?

This Sunday, the New York Times' public editor finally responded to "hundreds" of letters from readers criticizing what they judged to be unfair attacks on Pope Benedict XVI.  Hoyt, the public editor, noted one persistent grievance: why wasn't the Times covering the plague of child sex abuse in public schools and other religious communities?  Hoyt didn't bother to answer that question. But that issue underscores the danger of the media's single-minded focus on clergy sex abuse (and I say this as one Catholic who believes that the housecleaning will do  great good for the church): the public has been led to think that abuse only occurs in the Catholic church, when, in fact, priests represent a tiny fraction of individuals committing this crime. Now top bioethicist, John Haas responds to a recent column by the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan. Haas notes the distortions created by the media's unbalanced coverage, despite the fact that the Church has done more than any other institution to address this issue. Writes Haas:

"There will be media reports of sexual abuse by school teachers, Scout leaders, swimming coaches, and others, but they are fleeting. In March a judge ordered the Boy Scouts to release over 1,200 "perversion files" with Scout leaders who had molested boys. In early April a headline shouted, "Sex Abuse Pervasive in USA Swimming," with reports of molesters going unchallenged for decades as they moved from state to state. In 2002 Dr. Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University prepared a report for the U.S. Department of Education that found that 6 to 10 percent of high school students across the country have been sexually abused or harassed. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," she declared. However, such reports will surface for a day and then quickly recede from public consciousness.

Many have heard of the sexual abuse by clergy in Catholic schools in Germany. However, at the time these reports were surfacing, it was learned that a prestigious private boarding school had an unspeakable record of abuse of its own. The Odenwaldschule is a UNESCO model school whose administration would arrange to have students provide "entertainment" for visitors and whose male students were having sexual relations with the wives of teachers. A music teacher had numerous pupils living with him in his apartment. The administrator of the school was an advisor to the German Ministry of Education. Where were the headlines proclaiming that a UNESCO model school was engaged in the systematic molestation of children? In fact, when the report of the Odenwaldschule first appeared it was under a headline decrying abuse in Catholic schools!

None of these other social institutions have put safeguards in place that even begin to approach those that have been established by the Catholic Church. There is nothing on a national level that tracks abusive school teachers, for example. And such negligence by these other institutions leaves more children at risk."

Pope Benedict XVI: Charity in Truth

Today, the National Catholic Register offered insightful commentary on the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI"s pontificate from Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Catholic politician who serves as the president of the Christian Democratic UDC party and has a strong background in philosophy and theology. 

. "Charity in Truth," writes Buttiglione, sums up the central theme of Benedict's pontificate:

"The world of today wants a Christianity that is kind to everybody and is ready to take at face value whatever everybody wishes in terms of their fulfilment, the meaning of their life. It wants a Christianity that is ready to help everybody to reach their goals. But what they do not want is the Church to have an idea about the truth of man. They don’t want the Church to say to a drug addict: “Don’t do that; you’re destroying your life. This is wrong.” They want a love without truth.

The message of Benedict XVI is that true love is a passionate interest in another; a passionate interest that is aimed at the true happiness, true fulfilment of each individual human being. If you really love someone and see that he is destroying himself, you have not only the right but the duty to tell him he is doing wrong. And if you do not try to explain to him why it is wrong, if you don’t want to enter into a confrontation with him in order to convince him to save his own life, then you don’t really love him. This is the proper meaning of the word authority. Authority means you take responsibility to sometimes, if need be, say no. Our society suffers from a lack of authority. Parents do not feel authorized to say no anymore. And by the way, they don’t even know on which occasions they should say no because there is the idea that there is no objective truth."

Pontifical High Mass in Washington, D.C., April 24th

On April 24th, a Pontifical High Mass was celebrated at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in the nation's capital. The occasion marked the fifth anniversary of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and as has been the case with all church-related events these days: it drew some controversy. Still,from all reports, the actual Mass went off without a hitch: beautiful Tridentine liturgy  and inspiring homily delivered by Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, OK.

Acknowledging the spirtiaul and physical pain inflicted by the clergy sex abuse scandal and the recent attacks on the pope for failing to do more to halt the abuse, Bishop Slattery addressed the meaning and purpose of suffering in the Body of Christ. The National Catholic Reporter noted:

"In his homily, delivered in English, Bishop Slattery did not speak directly about the controversy or recent criticism of the pope, but he did not ignore it.

"We have much to discuss, you and I -- much to speak of on this glorious occasion when we gather together in the glare of the world's scrutiny to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the ascension of Joseph Ratzinger to the throne of Peter," he said.

Noting the "enormous suffering which is all around us and which does so much to determine the culture of our modern age," Bishop Slattery pointed to "the enormous suffering of His Holiness these past months" as well as the suffering of those who face poverty, abuse, neglect, disease and heartache. Such suffering, he said, "defines the culture of our modern secular age."

He added that pain and suffering "could dehumanize us, for it has the power to close us in upon ourselves such that we would live always in chaos and confusion, if we do not remember that Christ -- our hope -- has been raised for our sakes."

Bishop Slattery urged the faithful to turn to God in times of suffering because "he makes himself most present in the suffering of his people." God's saving presence and infinite love, the bishop said, "can never be overcome by the darkness, no matter how thick, no matter how choking."

He said suffering -- "yours, mine, the pontiff's" -- is "the heart of personal holiness ... It is the means by which we are made witnesses of his suffering and sharers in the glory to come."

"Do not be dismayed that many in the church have not yet grasped this point, and fewer still in the world will even consider it," Bishop Slattery said. "You know this to be true -- and 10 men who whisper the truth speak louder than a hundred million who lie."

Questioning the Pope: New York Times Public Editor Responds

Yesterday, the New York Times public editor responded to the flood of criticism regarding the paper's recent coverage of the clergy sex abuse scandal. While the public editor position was designed to provide a neutral forum for readers' concerns, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, yesterday's column suggests that the paper remains ill-prepared to actually provide an objective reassessment of its journalistic balance and professional standards. Disappointing, but not surprising. Here is the substance of Hoyt's response:

"Many readers, including church officials, took the article as a direct attack on Pope Benedict. But much of their criticism does not hold up:

¶De Souza, writing this time on National Review Online, said The Times accused Ratzinger of “intervening” to prevent Murphy from facing penalties. The paper did not. The Times article did not establish what role, if any, Ratzinger played, saying only that communications about the case were addressed to him and that his deputy intervened. That’s a long way from saying Ratzinger did.

¶Cardinal William Levada, an American who succeeded Ratzinger as head of the Vatican office with jurisdiction in the matter, wrote an unusual 2,400-word statement on the Vatican Web site, attacking the article and defending the pope. He said the reporter, Laurie Goodstein, did not examine the decisions of civil authorities and local church officials because her point was to blame the pope.

It is a fair question why Milwaukee government officials were not more aggressive about the case, but it is also perfectly appropriate for The Times, with a worldwide audience, to pay far more attention to the handling of a sexual-abuse case under the jurisdiction of the prelate who would eventually become pope.

¶The presiding judge in Murphy’s canonical trial, Father Thomas Brundage, said in an essay online that he had never received any communication halting the trial, and many critics of the Times’s coverage pointed to this as evidence that there was no pressure from the Vatican to drop the case. But The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel later confronted Brundage with a memo showing that he actually drafted the archbishop’s letter officially abating the trial. Brundage posted a statement: “In all honesty, I do not remember this memo, but I do admit to being wrong on this issue.”

¶William McGurn, a vice president of the News Corporation, wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal saying that Goodstein should have told readers more about the sources who gave her the documents on which her article was based. She identified them as Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, the lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Anderson told The Washington Post last week that he has filed more than 1,500 suits against the church, and the paper said he has made millions of dollars from them. McGurn said The Times should have emphasized that history.

Goodstein told me her article was not done at the instigation of the lawyers but came about from her own reporting inquiries. Regardless, the issue of whether Anderson has sued the church four times or 1,500 seems to me to be a red herring. The more important question is whether the documents were genuine and what they said about the case. I have read them and believe that Goodstein’s article is an accurate and reasonable account. Readers can interpret whether they showed a two-year lack of urgency about a horrendous case or, as Levada argued, a realistic judgment that it was “useless” to try a dying priest.

Some readers say The Times is anti-Catholic. They wonder why it isn’t giving equal effort to sex abuse in the public schools, or in other religions. And Levada and others argue that Benedict improved the Vatican’s response to such cases, streamlining the procedures for hearing them and apologizing to victims.

But it would be irresponsible to ignore the continuing revelations. A day after the first article about Murphy, The Times published another front-page article that said Benedict, while archbishop in Munich, led a meeting approving the transfer of a pedophile priest and was kept informed about the case. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish. The paper’s critics have been mostly silent about this report.

Like it or not, there are circumstances that have justifiably driven this story for years, including a well-documented pattern of denial and cover-up in an institution with billions of followers. Painful though it may be, the paper has an obligation to follow the story where it leads, even to the pope’s door."

At the risk of beating a dead horse, readers can review the paper's coverage and draw their own conclusions.