Column: Catholic leaders refuse to own up to past transgressions
Friday, April 18, 2008; 12:00 AM
Received at the White House earlier this week on his 81st birthday, Joseph Ratzinger — known to Roman Catholics by his stage name: Pope Benedict XVI — said the epidemic of child rape within the Church had sometimes been "very badly handled."
Laurence Kesterson / Philadelphia InquirerPope Benedict XVI greets the crowd at Nationals Park in Washington D.C., yesterday morning, April 17, 2008.

Now, while the three-quarters of us who are not Roman Catholics might write off the pageantry, adoration and obsecration among the faithful during the so-called Supreme Pontiff's visit as merely tedious and absurd, I can only hope that the Associated Press was damning with faint praise when they characterized Ratzinger's remarks as "his toughest critique yet."

Yet it seems politicians, pundits and the press never get fed up with their servility-bordering-on-slavishness routine whenever one of these Dark Age holdovers saunters through the country on a public relations tour for their ailing faith.

Instead of breathlessly covering Ratzinger's blame-shifting strategy — condemning secularism and the over-sexualization of America — why can't the press ask why the church continues to shelter Bernard Law, former archbishop of Boston, from justice?

Before resigning his archdiocese in 2002, Law admitted in a deposition that he knowingly transferred a priest — John Geoghan — who had raped at least seven boys in 1984 to another parish to avoid prosecution. Law allegedly moved another pedophile priest — Paul Shanley — to several different parishes in an effort to protect him from prosecution on 10 counts of child rape. Law allegedly lied to one parish when he said another rector/rapist — Redmond Raux — had "nothing in his background" to make him "unsuitable to work with children."

Law covered up incident after incident of child rape until his house of cards collapsed amid a series of lawsuits, depositions and disclosures that left him no alternative but to resign and flee the country. Law retained his cardinalship, and Karol Jozef Wojty — stage name: John Paul II — appointed Law archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome and — to prove that irony is not a dead scene — the Pontifical Council for the Family.

"The church will do everything it can to heal the wounds caused by pedophile priests" and ensure "events of this kind are no longer repeated," Ratzinger told Agence France Presse on his specially-chartered plane. Excellent, then it can hand over Bernard Law — and any child-raping clergymen the church is almost certainly still hiding — to the relevant authorities.

"As chief enforcer for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years, he had the power and the jurisdiction to stop this, but he did nothing," a former priest told AFP.

Speaking of "very badly handled," while at that position, Ratzinger ensured the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims go on in secret. He asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reach adulthood.

According to Ratzinger's orders, preliminary investigations into any claims of abuse should be sent to his office, which had the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the "functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests."

"Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret," Ratzinger's letter concludes. I disagree with my erstwhile cleric friend; Ratzinger did something far worse than nothing. According to the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests, there were 51 credible, new accusations of child rape, just in the United States and just last year.

"We're way beyond the point at which an apology, a nice gesture, a few soothing words and promises, will be meaningful," SNAP said in a statement.

The former priest told AFP, "The church has lost over $3 billion in settlements and in the next 10 years will certainly lose another three if things don't change. The church is scared." But apparently not scared enough for Ratzinger to make real changes, turn over priests or do much else besides blame horny movies and rap lyrics.

Joseph Ratzinger conspired and colluded to hide pedophile priests from prosecution, shelters other high church officials who did the same and somehow still merits a White House reception rather than arrest and prosecution?

Maybe it's another one of those miracles.


You might be interested in... Related Topics:
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 21 By all means, keep ignoring that there is something there under the tone of this column. I'm sure it'll make you "feel better" while in actuality it makes nothing "better". The tone overall, in my opinion, is one of trying to inject a little humor into a pretty dismal subject. Does the snarky tone inject a little bit of comedy? i think so, but that is person to person so you are entitled to disagree, but it does not change the core point. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ty at Apr 21 You lose all credibility about 5 seconds in this article because of you ultra condescending tone, and obvious bias and hatred you have associated with the catholic church. I pity you, and wish the CT would get journalists instead of people who are angry and need to vent. Flag Abuse
Posted by: The Dude Abides at Apr 20 This new Pope is uber-creepy... Flag Abuse
Posted by: Matt Cosner at Apr 20 Gabe - while I have no particular affinity for the Catholic Church, its doctrine, its outlook, and its actions, you need to realize that there is such a thing as tact. You could have easily made your point without insulting the Church as an institution -- not to mention its millions of followers. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Apr 19 On one hand, the abusers should be punished. But can the Catholic Church do anything about it? Doesn't the saying go, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" -John 8:7 Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 19 i meant "our processes" not "our investigations" Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 19 yeah i heard about that last night Gabe. not cool. that implies a little more then just inheriting a problem. and no it's not out of bounds for the vatican to investigate, but our investigations shouldn't be suspended either. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 Well, the Holy See is a sovereign nation, so I think extradition, and even an internal legal process is not out of the question. My main beef with Ratzinger is his letter while head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which aided and abetted the crimes by enforcing silence in the Church until the statute of limitations had run out when the proper position would've been to hand the matter over to secular authorities. There is no extraterritoriality in our dealings with the Church, I think. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Agreed. However, I don't necessarily think that it's outside of the bounds of Vatican authority for them to conduct internal inquiries, at least for the Clergymen who have been relocated there. We'd expect the same from any other country from which we were seeking a prisoner to be extradited. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 and just to clarify, i'm not loking to blame the Pope for the abuses, i just hope eventually (sooner being better then later for all concerned) we see some people in court as i don't think we'd disagree that there were crimes commited here in the US. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 ok i understand. i just feel like it would be a big mistake to pay millions out, and not see some court appointed justice. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 No, I mean, I see where you are going with this. But what we are talking about now is some sort of extradition, and that requires a little more insight into the process than I can offer. What would be done in the US is one thing . . .the legal ramifications of 'demanding' people from the Vatican is something a bit different. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 all i personally want to see is all the Americans accused in court. to me that should also include accomplices (anyone who knew it to be going on and moved people instead of informing authorities catholic or public) because here it is illegal. i could be overstepping my bounds in assuming this,but here it goes: i think the abused may rather see people punished then to just be paid off. again, just to be clear, that sounds kind of snarkey. i do not intend it that way. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 To be honest, I'm not quite sure. The church hasn't officially excommunicated people in years, and usually excommunication is reserved for heretics and people who straight up try to sabotage the church. I don't believe there to be a vatican jail - things of this order haven't really happened much in the history of the church. Usually, the institutional abuse has been top-down - this time, it seems to be bottom-heavy and so I'm not really sure how the church will deal with it. I doubt, though, that there will be a public hanging, if that's what you're after. . . Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 ok, now to reveal a little ignorance what type of punishment can we expect? is there a vatican jail, or are we just talking about excommunication? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Those are questions I, unfortunately, cannot answer. I think a suitable answer would be along the lines of presumption of innocence. Maybe the Pope simply isn't great with being discrete - I'm not really sure. What I do know is that there was a great deal of controversy when he was named Pope because he was from the 'old school' - traditionalist, and not unwilling to wield the staff of discipline. If what the public is looking for is a head on a platter, I'm not sure they are going to get it - that isn't really how the Catholic church works anymore. I think the Pope views his mission now, though, as providing closure for the victims and seeking ways to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Sealing the wound, so to speak, before sopping up the spilled blood (I hope that analogy made sense. . . ) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 i see where you are going with that, but to me one big thing doesn't fit. if that was the case and he just wanted to get him out and investigate, why give him titles? and why specificly Pontifical Council for the Family? even if everything comes out that this guy didn't do what they say he did it still looks fishy right now. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Be careful about conflating the terms 'immoral' and 'illegal.' Legal principles are determined by individual societies and are a distinct set of rules along with their associated punishments for breaking those rules. Something considered to be 'immoral' may well not be illegal - adultery, for instance, is likely to be considered immoral but is not, in the US, illegal. What I see in the Pope's actions are an attempt to maintain the integrity of the church while trying to figure out what *really* happened over here with the priests in question. While I don't doubt that various Bishops and Archbishops in the US have made explicit attempts to conceal the illicit actions of their subordinates, I'm not so convinced that the problem goes straight to the top of the chain - and I think what the Pope has done has been to reshuffle the deck and remove the accused offenders from places where they can do further harm, such that a more thorough investigation can take place. Some may see this as 'moving too slowly' on the matter, but I would charge that what becomes of the entire situation bears great weight for the religious balance of the world, and as such it seems like the Pope is more interested in ensuring that all facts are considered before punishments are handed down. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 what has been mostly skiped over here is that playing the shell game with pedophiles is immoral (even for the non-religious) and illegal. the fact that this pope has taken this man to the vatican and given him positions of power,while maybe not illegal (if it's not it should be), is certainly unethical and immoral. not that i'm saying catholics on the whole are immoral or even agree with this pope, but as a moral leader he must have studied at Bush U. (is that why he's an honorary republican?) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 kyle thank you for answering, and yes i'd agree with you. I just wanted to hear someone explain it rather then just level accusations. but yes i'll try to steer it back. It seems to me that most people don't have a problem with critique as long as it's not their "thing" you are criticizing. That being said we are all intitled to have and state our opinins. some here have done that, others have just made statements. if you have an opinion, have some ideas to back them up. and i failed to bring it back to subject as fully as i wanted to, but i tried. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 I don't want to steer the conversation in this direction, because it isn't really relevant to the article - but if you read my comment, I do say that the CT leans to the left, but that it is less a factor of editorial desire and more a factor of that college students themselves tend to lean to the left. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Apr 18 If you don't think the CT leans to the left you must be blind, or can't comprehend what you're reading. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Apr 18 Please take a moment to read. Al says "other religions or ways of life" and goes on to give an example of (1) an other religion, and (2) an other way of life. Granted, his original comment is quite accusatory in its own right, but let's not cease to understand the words printed on the page. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Brian - I suppose I'll comment once on that here, but it's not really the appropriate medium to do so (since Gabe's article is thought-provoking, even if I don't agree totally with its premise). I tend only to read the opinions page of the CT, as the news pages tend to be saturated with misstatements of facts and poor quality reporting. So from the standpoint of 'news reporting,' I'd say there really isn't enough information to attribute a bias one way or the other. The editorial page, in my view, tends to lean fairly heavily to the left - but I'm not wholly surprised by that either. When your pool of opinions writers is drawn from a crowd of 20-somethings, and when you realize that 20-somethings tend to lean heavily left on the political scale, I think the imbalance is due more to a lack of decent conservative writers to balance out the preponderance of halfway decent liberal writers (with the notable exception, in my opinion, of Brett Morris). So is the CT biased? I suppose from a technical standpoint, I'd say that yes, its politics leans a bit to the left. But I think that is de facto from being a college newspaper, staffed by college students who tend to be leftists to varying degrees anyway. I hope that answers your question . . . Flag Abuse
Posted by: random hokie at Apr 18 alright guys give it a chance to breathe. If everyone fires the intolerant card at each other at this rate it will just catch fire and you'll need to find a new toy... er card to play with. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 Kyle, having gathered through your posts that you are not a "liberal" i'd like to hear your opinion on if the CT is liberally biased or not. I have heard it thrown around but with little to no examples or proof. I trust you will qualify your opinion no matter what it is. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 and al....being gay is not a religion, i think you showed yourself to be a "bigot" in that statement alone. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 Are you conflating Islam with same-(gender) relationships? Wow, that's stunning! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 Hokie....wow i think you may be better served to check the mirror on that one. is it just me or does calling someone intolerant without an explaination seem...i don't know....INTOLERANT? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 I don't think you're in a position to tell me of what I should be ashamed. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Al at Apr 18 Can anyone say "bigot"? Gabe McVey, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing this article. This would almost be tolerable if there were articles condemning other religions or ways of life, like Islam or homos*xuality; but I know you wouldn't have the balls to write about that. The CT is a one way street... complete and total liberal bias. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 When you look at the results, though, the picture is much clearer. Developed nations with access to modern, secular education and other sources of information about contraception and prophylaxis beside the Church have far lower rates of infection than those that do not. Being that humans are simply primate mammals that are designed to "screw around", it's near-impossible to appeal to people to imply control themselves. In pre-modern Europe the pout-of-wedlock birthrate was far higher than it is now, same case here in America. But this is turning into an argument about se(x). I think that the Church was much better served when it used its more honest argument, that it's better to die righteous than live in sin...and yes political orthodoxy is a kind of religion, which is why I spurn partisan politics for the most part. I'd call myself liberal...but not dogmatically so. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Well, I mean, I guess it depends on what is considered to be a 'common sense' approach to problems, and which problems are more important. The Catholic church opposes condom distribution because it operates from the premise that people ought to be able to control themselves, and that the root of the problem is permissible promiscuity rather than safety. Condom distribution, then, is a symptomatic approach to 'curing the disease' rather than a wholistic approach to solving the problem. It's a difference of opinion argument - just as the difference between Democrats' and Republicans' tax policies are just different ways to solve a common problem. But then, political orthodoxy is sort of a religion in its own right, which brings us back to the beginning. . . Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian in Ohio at Apr 18 not sure what to say other then if you are going to be in a group that is willing to tell others they are inferior(gays, people who have s3x before marriage, people of other faiths) that group should expect the same treatment right? (not directed at any one previus poster....just Catholisism in general) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Apr 18 Gabe, I'd prefer "things which may be beyond the scope of their rational faculties" rather than "at odds with" them. Kyle applauded you for separating religion itself from faith, but you're now treading into the area of criticizing faith by pointing out the errors of the faithful. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 Certainly there are very smart people who believe in things that seem at odds with their rational faculties. Christian apology is often compelling in it's own limited way - one can't fail to note Blaise Pascal - or dreary and uninspired, as C.S. Lewis, but it fails to address the fundamental question of faith. The major religions of the world get the origins of man and the cosmos appallingly wrong and from this original error all of the problems of their cosmologies proceed. If one really believes that one has a sacred right to a particular piece of real estate, then "question" of that faith's truth is of paramount importance. My estimation of an individual is not dimmed by their faith, in and of itself. By all means, believe that Jesus or Buddha or Mani or whoever has revealed to or for you some secret of the cosmos. I wouldn't condescend to call you unintelligent. But when these beliefs start making others' live worse - as with the Church in it's opposition to condom use in AIDS-ravaged Africa - then I reserve the right to condemn not simply the action, but the ideology that informs it...personal or not. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 I'd contend, Gabe, that faith is an innately personal thing - either you have it or you don't, and either case is fine with me so long as you don't assert that one is somehow 'better' than the other. There are arguments that make secularism seem pretty sweet, and there are arguments which are fairly compelling for faith - and none of it is really relevant. Now, all that having been said, this is an opinion page and so I can't really expect you to state anything other than your opinion - hence the apparent contempt for Catholics. I promise you, though, we aren't all the simpletons you seem to believe that we are. It isn't a question of the 'truth' of faith, as it were - and the competence of an individual shouldn't be continent upon a 'realization' that the church is somehow invalid. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 You're close Kyle, I actually think that faith serves no meaningful purpose EXCEPT for in the historical examples you've shown. The supposed good deeds of faith have their secular equivalents, while the evils of faith have their secular equivalents not among rational agents, but Hitler, Stalin and Mao. While that may serve as a valid indictment of modern secularism (I think not, but space is limited) this you too argument doesn't validate faith...it is a sufficient, but not a necessary one. As for the "good effects" of faith, that old saw doesn't say anything about whether faith is true or not, just that it makes one feel good are act better, I'd invoke Harris' comparison of believing one has a refrigerator-sized diamond buried in the yard. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Gabe McVey at Apr 18 First things first, I owe Ratzinger no respect until he's earned it...period. After many years of careful consideration, I've decided that the whole business (and yes, the Church is a business first and foremost) is an apocryphal, apostical criminal gang. If I offend...tough. You retain the right to ignore it. As for the idea that I'm "intolerant" toward Catholics...this is raw nonsense. No one chooses to be a Jew, or black, or Hispanic. These are accidents or ancestry and genetics. Being Irish or Italian or Puerto Rican should, IMO, be neither a source of pride or shame. One does, however, choose to be a Catholic or is John 3:16 no longer in effect. One's chosen actions are fair game for mockery and satire, so deal with it or don't. Kyle, the whole last point is kind of a joke. Of course the Massachusetts state police aren't going to arrest the pontiff for his cover-up activities while he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith border on the criminal whether the Church has its own internal mechanism or not. These priests committed secular crimes, temptation or not (child rape, tempting?...ah, another time) these men should have been tried by secular authorities. If a similar event occurred in our public schools, there'd be a push to abolish them. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 Now, I'm a Catholic - and I have also read enough of Gabe's columns to know his stance on religion in general. He is, I believe, rightfully skeptical of organized religion; I say rightfully because of the history of how religions have been, for lack of a better term, hijacked to fulfill non-religious ends. We look at the Crusades and the Inquisition for Catholics, the repeated splits of the Protestant sects, as well as incidents like terror bombings across the world led by primarily Muslim agents as examples of these abuses of religious authority. And I think, in general, Gabe does a pretty good job of divorcing his critiques of religious believe from his critiques of organized religion. It seems to me that this column is representative of that - and while, Gabe, I think you might have chosen a more respectful tone as the vessel for your argument, your criticisms of the failings of the purely human entity which is the Catholic Church hierarchy makes a lot of sense. A lot of people will be offended by the mocking tone this column presents - and I think that is certainly valid. But I think the broader issue, and perhaps one you didn't have time to address, Gabe, is the nature of religious institutions (ie, churches) versus religion as a principle. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Another Catholic at Apr 18 While your article may have some valid points, your offensive choice of words was enough to make me stop reading this trash halfway through. You should be ashamed of yourself. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Moderate Catholic at Apr 18 As a Catholic I am insulted by this article. Many of the points are valid, I personally believe that Bernard Law grossly mishandled the situation. However, the mocking tone that McVey takes is insulting. Calling his papal name a "stage name" and referring to our adoration of the pope as "tedious and absurd" is sickening. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the CT would print an article that is so scathing towards the Catholic church in general. On second thought, I am not surprised at all. Many of the points are valid, however, the choice of language and the tone of the article are in very bad taste. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Apr 18 To your last point, Gabe, it's a little more complicated than simply slapping the cuffs on the Pope and hauling him off to arraignment. The church does in fact have its own disciplinary procedures, and those procedures are fairly well recognized by many of the world's countries. It is important to remember that priests, like any other man, are not infallible - they are every bit as capable of sin and immorality as anyone else. They too succumb to temptation, just like anyone else. They are capable too of abusing their authority, just like anyone else. But to a large extent, it's important to consider that, from what I know about the situation, the Vatican really doesn't know the full extent of the abuses (other than what is reported in the oft-unreliable press) - most of the abuses tend to be kept 'in-house' in the particular diocese as a matter of self-preservation by the priests involved. Is it shameful? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Of course. But the new Pope hasn't had a whole lot of time to work, and inherited this problem from the previous Pope. It's a tricky problem to try and solve, and it isn't just so simple as firing the offending priests. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dave at Apr 18 Way to go, I can't believe how few news agencies fail to highlight this is simply a legal coverup. It's disgusting. The first thing this morning I Googled in the news was Bernard Law and your piece came up. This whole scene is nauseating. Thanks. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Apr 18 I don't believe Gabe is intolerant toward the faith itself, but rather the injustices perpetrated by the leaders of the faith. I believe it's fair for him to question how people can look to this man as a leader of their faith. As I understand it, even the notion of papal infallibility only applies to the teachings of the Pope, not his actions. So why, then, are so many willing to look to this man for guidance in the face of some pretty damning allegations? Sometimes, even in matters of faith, reality must intervene. Flag Abuse
Posted by: GabeMcVey is a Hypocrite at Apr 18 Mr. McVey - for someone who has lambasted America for lack of tolerance toward minorities in the past, you show a disturbing lack of tolerance for other people's chosen faith. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Vader at Apr 18 I find your lack of faith disturbing. Flag Abuse
Add your opinion
Copyright © 2008 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | print edition | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» VT webmail
 » VT People Search
» My VT / Hokie Spa
 » VT Blackboard
» gmail