Home › Blogs › Joel's blog

Peggy Noonan is right about something

Fri, 04/02/2010 - 09:21 — Joel

I'm not a Catholic, but I can't help be fascinated (and horrified) by the unfolding sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't really know how much Pope Benedict is directly responsible for allowing horrific situations to continue and how much the self-protecting bureaucracy of the church -- like any bureaucracy -- is to blame. I strongly suspect that any of the former has its roots in the latter.

That said, I appreciate what Peggy Noonan has to say about the matter in today's Wall Street Journal:

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 seems exactly right to me. But watching from the outside, it has appeared to me that the response of the Church has been largely to A) lash out at the "bias" of journalists who have uncovered the story and B) defend the Church by noting that other sectors of society have also had problems dealing with child abuse. As though the Church shouldn't be held to a higher standard. I'm reminded of a saying about removing the log from your own eye before telling your brother to remove the speck from his. Who said that again?

At its best (which isn't always) the Church has offered a powerful moral example even for those of us who do not share in its communion. I suspect it can retain that moral authority only if it follows Noonan's advice -- and its own teachings -- and offer up a full, real confession accompanied by appropriate penance. Such activities, I understand, usually take place in private. The Church doesn't have that luxury.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Buzz Up!
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7226

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 04/04/2010 - 10:56 — Hamilton

Why

Doesn’t the Church have that luxury?

Sun, 04/04/2010 - 11:38 — Joel

Re: Why

Because otherwise it looks like it is still covering up child rape. Which makes it really difficult for the Church to do its job of evangelizing the world, or even of retaining its own members.

Wed, 04/07/2010 - 13:26 — Hamilton

It looks like it to you

But to millions of Christians worldwide, who understand the power of evil even unto Priest; one human is not responsible for the actions of the devil. As badly as you and those like you want to be the perfection to judge the intent of men’s souls; it is above your pay grade. The Church, the Pope has every right to deal internally with sins against God, just as you do. As long as the laws of man are respected and upheld in regards to investigation and prosecution the absolution is none of your business.

Wed, 04/07/2010 - 13:44 — Joel

Re: "None of my business"

As long as the laws of man are respected and upheld in regards to investigation and prosecution the absolution is none of your business.

Well, that's the problem isn't it?

As for the rest of it, I think we're talking on two different tracks. I think you're talking about the realm of God, sin, souls and sacrament. I'm talking a little bit more about the Church as a here-on-Earth institution.

Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:25 — Wry Mouth

"As long as the laws of man

"As long as the laws of man are respected and upheld in regards to investigation and prosecution the absolution is none of your business."

As for me, and my (Roman Catholic) deaconite parents, we say, "where priests have raped and otherwise abused children, let them be turned over to the courts."

I feel about this, the same way I feel about the general pool of Muslims, who should be first in line to turn their so-called "radical" brethren in.

The Church does itself no service, and does Man no service, by serving as a nesting place for pedophiles and others. I would extend this thought, too, all the way to those churches who (mistakenly, I believe) provide "sanctuary" to illegal foreigners on our soil. We can forgive sins against our fellow Man and ourselves, but we should be very, very careful about how we "stand against" secular law. mid-century Germany is one thing, or Red China. We are not there, in this instance.

C'mon, Pope Ben! You can do it!

Mon, 04/12/2010 - 13:07 — Khabalox

Hitchens on Ratzinger

At Slate, famously atheist Christopher Hitchens tells us why Pope Benedict, neé Ratzinger, shouldn't be trusted to decided who's criminal.

It must be noted, also, that all the letters from diocese to Ratzinger and from Ratzinger to diocese were concerned only with one question: Can this hurt Holy Mother Church? It was as if the children were irrelevant or inconvenient (as with the case of the raped boys in Ireland forced to sign confidentiality agreements by the man who is still the country's cardinal). Note, next, that there was a written, enforced, and consistent policy of avoiding contact with the law. And note, finally, that there was a preconceived Ratzinger propaganda program of blaming the press if any of the criminal conduct or obstruction of justice ever became known.

The obscene culmination of this occurred on Good Friday, when the pope sat through a sermon delivered by an underling in which the exposure of his church's crimes was likened to persecution and even—this was a gorgeous detail—to the pogroms against the Jews. I have never before been accused of taking part in a pogrom or lynching, let alone joining a mob that is led by raped deaf children, but I'm proud to take part in this one.

The keyword is Law. Ever since the church gave refuge to Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston to spare him the inconvenience of answering questions under oath, it has invited the metastasis of this horror. And now the tumor has turned up just where you might have expected—moving from the bosom to the very head of the church. And by what power or right is the fugitive cardinal shielded? Only by the original agreement between Benito Mussolini and the papacy that created the pseudo-state of Vatican City in the Lateran Pact of 1929, Europe's last remaining monument to the triumph of Fascism. This would be bad enough, except that Ratzinger himself is now exposed as being personally as well as institutionally responsible for obstructing justice and protecting and enabling pederasts.

The bolded part is my emphasis. I tried to preserve the original links, so my apologies if they are incorrect.