The story revolves around the now disgraced Fr. Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, which he built by the force of his will into one of the most powerful orders in the Catholic Church. Maciel was revered by his followers yet lived a double life as a sexual predator, molesting both boys and girls and fathering children with multiple women. Rumors began circling around him in the 1950's, but he was able to use the very nature of his order, which inculcated military style obedience and a cult-like allegiance to himself, to suppress all criticism.
The record shows, and the Times reports, that then Cardinal Ratzinger favored pursuing an investigation of Maciel when serious allegations broke through the Legionary code of silence in 1997. He was stymied, however, by Maciel's powerful defenders within the Curia who considered the accusations malicious and baseless, including several key advisers to the late John Paul II and the then Pope himself. In 2004, Ratzinger, having outmaneuvered Maciel's supporters, was finally able to launch a thorough investigation of Maciel and his Legionaries. As a result, Maciel was found to have led "a life devoid of scruples and of genuine religious feeling." He was forced to resign from the Legion, removed from active ministry and exiled to a monastery to live out his last days in shame. His order is facing a severe restructuring, with some doubt as to whether it can survive what will be a rigorous and traumatic process.
We pick up the story in 2002, when Cardinal Ratzinger has had to shelve his plans for an investigation. From the Times account: "In October 2002, Mr. Barba [a Maciel victim] said he had dinner with Ms. Wegan [his canon lawyer] at a restaurant near her apartment in Rome. She told him, he said, that Cardinal Sodano had pressed Cardinal Ratzinger, who was thought to favor proceeding with a case, to drop the investigation...
"But something changed. In December 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger opened a canonical investigation and sent Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, a Maltese canon lawyer who in 2002 was appointed promoter of justice at the Congregation, to Mexico to question the plaintiffs."
What had changed?
"In 2001, all clerical sex abuse cases had been ordered sent to Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation. Mr. Magister [a veteran Vatican observer] said he believed that as the cardinal became increasingly aware of the problem’s magnitude, he ordered that old cases — including the Maciel matter — be re-examined."
All clerical sex abuse cases had been ordered sent to Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation on whose initiative? Is it possible Cardinal Ratzinger himself insisted on this? All accounts point directly to just that. But that is not the most important aspect of this passage. It is the way the Times presents Benedict's motivation in this case that I wish to examine. In this section, the discussion of Benedict's motives is unsatisfactorily opaque; it leaves unclear whether Mr. Magister sees Ratzinger's interest in re-examining old cases and rooting out clergy sex abuse as coming from the depths of his heart out of shock at the suffering these cases represented, or whether his concerns were centered more around the Church's institutional health. Mr. Magister undoubtedly has an opinion on this, but we are not given it. We are given very little of Magister's perspective here. There is just enough of him for the Times to say that he was included in the story and he is only once quoted directly, when he observes that among Maciel's Vatican supporters “the accusations truly were seen as unfounded and a vendetta against him”. Furthermore, this potential motive is presented rather weakly ("Mr. Magister said he believed") so they must have other options.
And they do:
"And in late 2004... with the pope’s health and power waning, Cardinal Ratzinger may have felt a freer hand in acting against a figure protected by others in the Vatican — [1]possibly to clear the decks for the next pope, [2]possibly to remove a stain on John Paul’s record [3] or his own, should he be considered for the papacy."
Ah, well, that frames the decision in the calculating, bloodless light that the Times is bent on portraying the Pope in. And the source for these possibilities against that of Mr. Magister in the earlier paragraph? Why, the Times itself. No attribution is given to any of these novel surmises and no authority is rested on beyond the writers' own opinions.
It is impossible not to notice that while they were pulling motives out of the airy ether that they refused to state the obvious one, which was implied by Mr. Magister (whose positive assessment of Benedict is a matter of public record available to anyone who reads his website): that Cardinal Ratzinger simply did what he believed was right in moving against a powerful, well protected man when given the opportunity to do so. He was determined to investigate Maciel, had been constrained from investigating Maciel, and struck against Maciel when the moment presented itself.
Magister himself has made this case before by framing Benedict's response to sexual abuse as being driven by his moral and spiritual core. In an interview with Il Sussidiario he said of the Pope:
"Joseph Ratzinger, first as a Cardinal and later as Pope, has always clearly seen the essential element of these offenses and how they should be addressed. He spoke of 'filth' in the church. And as such it is even more serious if embodied by those in the sacred order of priesthood, who should be in persona Christi, the image of the living Christ. The answer to the filth is a great purification.
"...this Pope has long demonstrated the hard work required to combat these behaviors and recall the whole Church to the penitential approach where we are now. He is doing a very energetic job of awakening the national bishops conferences. They must become aware of the seriousness of these events, actions that are attributable to specific people, but which cast their shadow over the entire Church."
Magister has also spoken of the Pope as "the very man who has done more than anyone, in the Church hierarchy, to heal this scandal..." of clerical sexual abuse and "...the most prescient of all" in dealing with the Legionaries.
The record shows that Benedict, as both a Cardinal and as Pope, has been vigorous and instrumental in addressing the societal scourge of child sexual abuse as it has expressed itself within the Church. His concern began in the 90's when allegations against three powerful men surfaced: Maciel of the Legionaries; Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, the Archbishop of Vienna ; and Fr. Gino Burresi, the charismatic founder of the Congregation of the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Benedict was on the side of justice in all of these cases, taking on corrupt men of stature and influence and removing them from active service in the Church.
These experiences led him to lobby for control of sexual abuse cases to be shifted from the Congregation for the Clergy to his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2001. Once this was achieved, he streamlined the process for investigating, judging and punishing abusive priests, determined to remove what he often refers to as "filth" from the priesthood. His intervention was immediately felt. Monica Applewhite, an expert on sexual abuse who has worked closely with several US Catholic organizations over the past sixteen years, relates that:
"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.
[...]
"Today, clerical and religious sexual offenders recognize they can be laicized for their crimes or for a failure to adhere to obedience. This gives us much more leverage in terms of ensuring adherence to safety provisions.
"Several men I know have “tested” the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and found no tolerance for sexual abuse in the priesthood and no sympathy for the cleric who disagrees with programs of prayer and penance.
[...]
"Since 2001, the system has become much more uniform. There is a “form” of how to write up the case so that all allegations and the outcomes of investigations are clearly documented. Many trials are held locally, and the process is much faster. Even more importantly, the CDF gives support and credibility to bishops and superiors who are involved in disciplinary procedures, from removal from ministry to laicization."
Reviewing the cases that passed his desk had a tremendous impact on Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who spoke with Cardinal Ratzinger often during this period, relays in a 2008 interview with John Allen that Ratzinger "read all the case files, and he was profoundly affected by that. He has a deep sense of compassion for the victims, along with a deep sense of how the vocation of the priesthood has been betrayed by these crimes and sins."
Then, in 2002, Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental in working with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in drawing up, and lobbying for approval of, their zero-tolerance standards for cases of abuse. Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, who was president of the US Council of Catholic Bishops at that time, says of Ratzinger's role that he was:
"the one individual... who seemed to grasp the severity of the issue, to be most supportive of the direction that we were taking, and to encourage us to complete the work that we had begun... H[is] was, without a doubt, the most supportive voice at the table, and [he] always seemed to possess the greatest comprehension of the seriousness and the significance of reacting and responding with a strong action... Obviously, the details needed to be reviewed not merely by Cardinal Ratzinger, but by the other heads of the dicasteries, and so there were points of discussion – but in the long run, his was a voice of incredible importance to convince his confreres in the Curia. He gave us the kind of support and the kind of encouragement that allowed us to keep pushing forward."
Having been decisive in getting the U.S. norms approved, he ensured that his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith worked closely with the USCCB in administering them, his being the key Dicastery that the U.S. bishops looked to for support.
These standards have proven so effective that in the entire United States only six cases of abuse were reported in 2009. With the success of the U.S. norms having been demonstrated, work is now under way to make them the framework for universal standards throughout the Church. As well we cannot overlook that Benedict has met with and wept with victims of abuse on three separate occasions. Time and again Benedict has been in the lead on this issue, and has proven himself to be the key to the solution and not part of the problem.
But none of this registers with The Times. It is telling that the Times can not even offer as a possibility the idea that Benedict is a good and decent man motivated by a deep adherence to Christ and a corresponding sense of what is objectively right. The American newspaper of record is unwilling to even acknowledge the idea that Pope Benedict might be driven by considerations that are not merely self-serving or formed by institutional necessity. They refuse to ascribe any positive motive to the man. This is noteworthy. Now what is behind this oversight? Since they have seen fit to speculate on the motives of another I will hazard a guess about theirs. I will keep it short; Kenneth Woodward nailed them in "Church of the Times". They are culturally incapable of being fair to this Pope or to Catholicism in general. Their hermetic and opposing world-view will not allow it.
The Times has made a dogma of decrying all dogmas, and a religion of the liberal project with its emphasis on secularization of the political and cultural spheres, philosophical materialism, sexual libertinism and unlimited abortion. When the scribes of the Times survey the world with its variety of faiths and opinions, they reflexively look down long noses at any belief system that conflicts with their own. For this reason, The Times, in its religion coverage at least, is badly in need of real diversity: diversity of thought and belief. While they are scrutinizing others they should examine themselves. If they do so honestly and without undue defensiveness, improved coverage of Christianity is at least possible in their pages. Until that time we are guaranteed to see more of the same sneering treatment of faith for which the Times is becoming famous. As it stands now the Times is not presenting the world as it is, but strains constantly to present the world as it insists others should see it, with all of the distortion which that implies. Whatever else this can be called, the term "good journalism" does not apply.
