Over the past few weeks the New York Times has twice
reported that new evidence links Pope Benedict XVI to the
cover-up of two separate instances of clerical child abuse under
his jurisdiction: one case
involving the abusive principal of a school for deaf children in
Milwaukee that was referred to then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1996, and the
other relating
to an abusive priest’s return to full time ministry even after
Ratzinger permitted the priest to be transferred to his
archdiocese of Munich for therapy in 1980.
The first Times story lacks a firm basis. The
Times’ own documentation doesn’t
tell the story that the headline claims, the sources
questioned are not very
credible, and today the judicial vicar who presided over the
canonical trial of the abusive priest writes that he
was never contacted by the Times even though they quoted
him extensively, and that they and other outlets misquoted
him.
The second Times report, too,
fails in what is clearly its purpose: to establish that the
pope is entangled in the scandal. But it raises serious questions
about what then-Cardinal Ratzinger knew and when he knew it.
Further reporting could establish that Ratzinger was indeed
guilty of at least negligence, or it could exonerate him
completely.
What these articles have accomplished, as thinly reported as they
are, is to give the pope’s usual detractors a jumping-off point
for connecting Benedict’s theology to his personal involvement in
sex-abuse scandals. Take as one example of many
this article by Christopher Hitchens published in the
National Post, which condemns the pope in the strongest
terms: “Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has
the stench of evil - a clinging and systematic evil that is
beyond the power of exorcism to dispel.” Now, much of Hitchens’s
argument is way off — Sean Murphy has provided an exhaustive and
painstakingly documented
account of the numerous and serious errors of fact, internal
contradictions, and obfuscations. But the motivation for the
piece was to try to establish how far up the Church hierarchy the
responsibility for the crisis runs, and to shed a light on
Benedict’s personal responsibility.
And given the Church’s recent disgraceful record in handling
clerical abuse, that impetus — trying to establish Benedict’s
culpability — is definitely a worthwhile one. If Benedict is in
fact guilty of covering up for abusive priests, then the truth
must come out and he must be held accountable. After all, even if
he’s guilty of nothing more than negligence, the Church should be
held to a
higher standard, and that starts at the top.
On the other hand, if he’s innocent of these charges, the
available evidence suggests that Benedict
has done more to rid the Church of the sex abuse crisis than
anyone.
Either way, the New York Times has done the truth a
disservice. All that publishing these thinly-source accusations
has accomplished is to create two camps: one that thinks the
Vatican is guilty and is trying to poison its believers’ minds
into rejecting any claim otherwise, and another that concludes
that the usual collection of anti-Church bigots are mounting a
coordinated smear campaign against the pope, who must be
defended. Of course, what both sides really want is just the
truth. But it’s not so simple now.
Again, if the Times is on to something, the pope must be
held accountable. But if not, the Times
must be held similarly accountable for the damage it’s
done.
