Can a teaching pope get his house in order? [John Allen]

[Catholic_Press]

Article Details Some years ago, after a speech he delivered in Paris drew a bit of negative reaction, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told friends he wasn’t worried. “I’m like the cellist Rostropovich,” he joked. “I never read the critics.” That’s a policy Benedict XVI might want to preserve over the next few days, marking both his 83rd birthday today and the five-year anniversary of his papacy on Monday after a brief weekend stop in Malta. Especially in light of recent events.

                                By John L. Allen Jr.        
    

                                http://ncronline.org/files/Pope_april16.jpg?1271421970        
    

                                Pilgrims hold a sign in Italian saying "Pope, you are the blessed one," before the start of Pope Benedict XVI's general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican April 14. The word "Benedetto" is the pope's first name, which means blessed in Italian . (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Some years ago, after a speech he delivered in Paris drew a bit of negative reaction, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told friends he wasn’t worried. “I’m like the cellist Rostropovich,” he joked. “I never read the critics.”

That’s a policy Benedict XVI might want to preserve over the next few days, marking both his 83rd birthday today and the five-year anniversary of his papacy on Monday after a brief weekend stop in Malta. Especially in light of recent events, even the best reviews the pope’s likely to draw as these milestones roll by seem certain to be mixed.

The largest news magazine in his homeland of Germany, Der Spiegel, recently proclaimed Benedict’s regime a “Failed Papacy.” Meanwhile, an obscene phrase was spray-painted earlier this week on the house where Benedict XVI was born in Marktl am Inn, in southern Bavaria, and even in ultra-Catholic Malta, posters announcing the pope’s visit have been defaced with Hitler moustaches and references to pedophilia. In the United Kingdom, some voices are even proposing a criminal indictment against Benedict XVI when he arrives in September as the alleged mastermind of a global conspiracy to shelter predator priests. (At the bottom of this column is a link to my take on that idea.)

                                Show in Feed

More…

 

[markeverett49]

It was a good line, “I never read the critics,” but clearly he does know what his critics are saying and furthermore, it obviously bothers him. (How could it not?)

Also, as Pope, he is no longer a mere cellist in the orchestra. He must know that faithful Catholics read the papers, watch televised news, read stories on the Internet; he must know that such stories hurt them and that creates a real pastoral concern for him as Holy Father.

Finally, the ‘new evangelization’ is hampered by anything that makes the Church look bad and this clearly does. We owe it to those who are willing to consider the Church’s message an honest account of scandalous errors made by some of our members.

 

[JReducation]

The problem I see is that at this point in the venture, no matter what the Vatican says about these allegations; people are not going to settle for anything less than a guilty plea. Allow me to explain myself. The Holy Father could say that these abuses did take place and that they were not dealt with quickly enough. He can also say that at the time he was the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, but until 2001, he had no jurisdiction over the sexual abuse problem. Those were handled by the Congregation for the Clergy. This is actually true.

He can say that he knew about these cases, but that as far as he was concerned, they were being dealt with by the local bishops and the Congregation for the Clergy. This would also be true. There would be no reason for the Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith to involve himself in affairs of the another congregation or department. It would be like the Secretary of State becoming involved in the US Dept of Education. That’s another cabinet post and another jurisdiction.

He can say that there were letters about the American priest who molested the 200 children in the school for the deaf and that he had very little to do in the case, because there was a canonical trial in progress and the priest had been suspended. In addition, since the time of his suspension until the time of his death, there were no further incidents of misbehavior. Also, at the time of his death, the canonical trial was still in progress. He can even explain why he did not respond personally to some of the letters that some bishops sent to his department. The simple truth could very well be that the department gets thousands of letters from all over the world, which is true. There are people in that department who deal with these cases, so there is no need for the man at the top to get involved in every case, just as there would be no need for Hilary Clinton to get involved in cases that are being taken care of by the Office for Foreign Service under the State Department. That’s what ambassadors do. It is the job of the person at the top to make sure that everyone keeps working.

He can even add to that that he could have been more hands-on in these cases, but he assumed that everyone was doing the right thing as quickly as possible and unfortunately things were moving more slowly than expected. Which may be the truth here, given that he has been very aggressive in following up on the sexual abuse cases there is very little reason to believe that he was condoning or hiding anyone. It is more likely that he was following advice given to him by his staff and others outside of his team. The attorney who handled the sex abuse scandals for the USCCB spoke this week on EWTN and he said that he personally visited Cardinal Ratzinger and that the Cardinal was very attentive and very involved in the discussion of the problem. The meeting lasted several hours. That’s not a common meeting for these people in these positions. Even the President of the USA does not have four hour meetings to deal with a national issue. He states his points in bullets and everyone takes off to get things done. This takes all of 20 or 30 minutes, because the man has other things to do.

In a nutshell, he can cite the things that he did and where he could have been stronger, now that he has hindsight, which is always 20/20. But I’m not sure that people will accept this. There are people out there who want him to say that he condoned, covered up, obstructed justice, and even ignored the problems. If this is not true, there is no reason for him to say this.

The real problem is what can the Vatican say that will please most people, because you’re not going to please everyone. From a distance my belief is that the Vatican would do well to use some kind of professional corporation or organization that is an expert on these matters. The more that you point the finger at the press, the more the press comes at you with a vengeance. The press assumes that you are trying to hide something. I truly believe that this finger pointing is not an attempt to hide anything. It’s frustration. This is an issue that no one was prepared to deal with and that these men in the Vatican never dreamed would be so extensive. To a certain extent, they are dealing with a problem that is way out of their league. They are theologians, bishops, canon lawyers, scholars. They are not politicians who know what to say and what not to say to the press.

What is within their league is the moral issue. They certainly have to condemn it, punish it, and ask for forgiveness. They are also experts in theology and canon law and they can explain what theology and canon law allows them to do and what they cannot do, because it would be a violation of Church law or of doctrine. To the best of my knowledge this question has been asked and no one has explained it. If they have, I missed it.

The bishops used horrific judgment. Their judgment hurt many people (children, teens and their families), not to mention the people in the pew, other priests and religious who have to put up with the guilt of our confreres. But none of these judgments are heresies, apostasies or direct disobedience of the pope. The Papacy’s hands are tied. The most it can do is ask for their resignation and they can decline to give it. In that case, the Pope has to put them somewhere. You can’t leave a secular priest outside of the system. The communion with the pope cannot be broken.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[unafraid]

I disagree. The Vatican’s naivite in handling this media asault, when juxtoposed with the worldly sophisitication of their adversaries, speaks to a lack of pre-meditation, and in a certain sense, to innocence. A conspiracy is a thought-out process, and alway involves a plan of plausible deniability (in the event it is found out). No such thing can be seen in this case. Meekness and humility in the face of the executioners ax is the way of the martyrs. Is Our Church not built upon their bones, and their sacrifices?

No, hiring a professional public relations firm is the last thing they should do. What would they do, hire a barge on the Tiber, invite the offending media reps, hire a band, feed them some booze, grease some palms…get your spin on top of things. No way! The exclusivity, by which the Vatican remains separated from the world, and the worldly, would somehow be eroded by some slick counter-ofensive ad campaign. Inappropriate.

The Pope should be Christ-like in his words and actions in response to the attacks. Now, of course, in handling the internal crisis of the scandals, he should be strong, bold and authoritarian. However, I don’t see hiring a professional public relations firm as being in accord with that strategy. Hold the Holy Light of God high above the enemies of the Church. Drop it down to earth and you risk it being extinguished.

 

[markeverett49]

You can’t leave a secular priest outside of the system. The communion with the pope cannot be broken.QUOTE]

One can testify against them in court and watch them (if found guilty) hauled off to jail for their crimes. Two Palm Beach priests sit in jail now for stealing money from a Delray Beach parish. The Bishop approved of their jail sentences.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;6537164:

You can’t leave a secular priest outside of the system. The communion with the pope cannot be broken.QUOTE]

One can testify against them in court and watch them (if found guilty) hauled off to jail for their crimes. Two Palm Beach priests sit in jail now for stealing money from a Delray Beach parish. The Bishop approved of their jail sentences.

I don’t know if those priests were ever laicized. If they are not, they remain part of their diocese, but suspended. My guess would be that they are laicized. Because Canon Law does not allow a priest to be without a bishop. It does not matter where he is. This is an issue about the sacrament of Holy Orders, not about civil law. You can begin dismissal process against a priest who commits certain civil crimes. I’m not sure if stealing is one of them. I havae never seen it explicitly stated; but it could be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I disagree. The Vatican’s naivite in handling this media asault, when juxtoposed with the worldly sophisitication of their adversaries, speaks to a lack of pre-meditation, and in a certain sense, to innocence. A conspiracy is a thought-out process, and alway involves a plan of plausible deniability (in the event it is found out). No such thing can be seen in this case. Meekness and humility in the face of the executioners ax is the way of the martyrs. Is Our Church not built upon their bones, and their sacrifices?

No, hiring a professional public relations firm is the last thing they should do. What would they do, hire a barge on the Tiber, invite the offending media reps, hire a band, feed them some booze, grease some palms…get your spin on top of things. No way! The exclusivity, by which the Vatican remains separated from the world, and the worldly, would somehow be eroded by some slick counter-ofensive ad campaign. Inappropriate.

The Pope should be Christ-like in his words and actions in response to the attacks. Now, of course, in handling the internal crisis of the scandals, he should be strong, bold and authoritarian. However, I don’t see hiring a professional public relations firm as being in accord with that strategy. Hold the Holy Light of God high above the enemies of the Church. Drop it down to earth and you risk it being extinguished.

No one suggested a PR firm. Actually, the suggestion that was made was to bring in advisors. We did this in the USA and it has worked. We brought in the VIRTUS people and they are wonderful. Every priest, religious and lay person who works with youth or vulnerable people are being asked to go through the VIRTUS program. It has helped bring clergy, religious and laity closer together in facing the problem and avoiding future problems. Check out www.virtus.org .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;6537164:

You can’t leave a secular priest outside of the system. The communion with the pope cannot be broken.

One can testify against them in court and watch them (if found guilty) hauled off to jail for their crimes. Two Palm Beach priests sit in jail now for stealing money from a Delray Beach parish. The Bishop approved of their jail sentences.

I read about those cases. I don’t know if they have been laicized. Let’s assume, just for a moment that they are not laicized. In that case, they remain part of their home diocese, even while they are in jail. I would imagine that they are suspended. Secular priests cannot be separated from a bishop. The law does not allow this, because it is contrary to the scriptures. In the scriptures all the presbyters and deacons were attached to a bishop and it has been thus ever since. The only exception is if the priest is also a monk or a friar. Since monks and friars are religious brothers, those priests who are also religious brothers are attached to their major superior, not to a bishop.

If the priest is laicized, then he continues to be a priest, but is no longer part of the clerical state. Therefore, he need not be attached to a bishop.

To be dismissed from the clerical state you must commit certain crimes as defined by canon law and those crimes must be proven. It’s not all crimes that are cause for dismissal. The law is very specific.

I hope this helps clarify this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lancer]

It was a good line, “I never read the critics,” but clearly he does know what his critics are saying and furthermore, it obviously bothers him. (How could it not?)

Also, as Pope, he is no longer a mere cellist in the orchestra. He must know that faithful Catholics read the papers, watch televised news, read stories on the Internet; he must know that such stories hurt them and that creates a real pastoral concern for him as Holy Father.

Finally, the ‘new evangelization’ is hampered by anything that makes the Church look bad and this clearly does. We owe it to those who are willing to consider the Church’s message an honest account of scandalous errors made by some of our members.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mark, excellent post (#2).

I also don’t agree with those who state that “nothing will do any good” [to correct negative public impressions]. Depends on what you do, how you do it, how forthright you are in your statements, or whether you dance around the many issues. If they are allegations, they need to be addressed directly, publicly. If those allegations are in error, they also deserve to be refuted publicly. No need to go into confidential personnel history, even. Just,

*"We understand there were screw-ups because not enough accountability was put into place at every step of the way; communication in some cases was inadequate or inconsistent. Some church authorities appear to have chosen ignorance and/or protection coupled with inaction, over the painful truth. While it involved a small percentage of clergy, it occurred in many countries, which shows that a pattern of neglect or mismanagement cries out for a corrective pattern preventatively. Whether one priest or 70 priests, it was unacceptable. Whether one bishop or several, unacceptable, then and now. Here are the systematic steps we envision for the immediate future, to be adopted by the universal church.[enumerate…]

We are charged with preserving Justice, Truth, and Charity for anyone victimized as well as anyone who might be unjustly accused, in service of He who is Justice and Truth, and thus we alone are responsible to take the leadership in reparation and healing. This will occur at every step of the way: from the screening of entering candidates to the priesthood, to supervision during their formation, to oversight after ordination and regularly during their ministerial assignments. From the laity side, we will ensure that all laity have recourse to reporting avenues and that any allegations will be thoroughly but neutrally investigated, to include lay members in that investigation as well as clergy, and without assumptions of guilt or innocence."*

Real leaders speak the raw, unvarnished truth. Real leaders care more about truth than public image. Real leaders take responsibility for a group or institution they represent, whether or not they themselves were personally involved in, or accused of, any part of a crisis or controversy. Anything less is cowardice, self-promotion, dishonesty. Humility does not require humiliation – of oneself or of others. But humility is always a spiritual adjunct of those who claim to represent Truth. The speaking of the truth, and the acting in truth, always elevates the individual – both in the actual, spiritual sense, and in the subjective realm of perception. There is no adequate or credible substitute for truth. And the public can smell a PR machine a continent away.

Disclaimers:
I was not a victim of child sexual abuse by any priest or clergy.
I am not a member of any advocacy group regarding this issue.
I strongly prefer the elevation of the Church’s image to the continued injury of that image.
I am not on a campaign to injure individuals, let alone an entire institution.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I do think that the Vatican needs to hire a professional crisis management firm. Please don’t think that I am suggesting a firm which would encourage them to falsify matters, actually a good firm would encourage quite the opposite.

Right now there are too many people speaking with too few facts. People within the church are trying to clarify matters and defend the church at the same time; they create further controversy. There needs to be a clear, consistent and truthful message delivered repeatedly. Trying to respond to headlines will never work.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ Good point, AV.

And I support your idea of outside assistance, because of the fact that the Church is used to insulating itself for various valid and invalid reasons, and thus it is difficult sometimes for those on the inside to get the full picture of how this impacts laity and public, and how to address it from more than an ‘insider’ point of view and lingo.

 

[embertx3]

I do think that the Vatican needs to hire a professional crisis management firm. Please don’t think that I am suggesting a firm which would encourage them to falsify matters, actually a good firm would encourage quite the opposite.

Right now there are too many people speaking with too few facts. People within the church are trying to clarify matters and defend the church at the same time; they create further controversy. There needs to be a clear, consistent and truthful message delivered repeatedly. Trying to respond to headlines will never work.

I’m trying to understand how this could work. Is there a really a reliabe professional crisis management firm that the Vatican can look into? One without its own biasis? I don’t know maybe there is and would like to know if there is such a thing other than the Police system? IMO it would be ideaslistic to find such a firm that would not be biased and have a thorough understanding of the process of the church to get to the truth in a quick time frame.

 

[Elizabeth502]

embert,
such firms are oriented toward goal and utilizing a professional approach toward that goal. They make it their task to become knowledgeable about the essential orientation of the institution (and about the crisis) of the client(s) in question. Anyone with a strong “bias” against a particular person or institution would not be interested in taking on such a challenge, because it would be difficult to do an effective job in that case.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that they need some kind of assistance. As someone pointed out, right now there are too many individuals responding to headlines. They are doing it without any kind of rhyme or reason. I understand that they are trying to do good, but it doesn’t work for the average person, because most people don’t have the time or the interest to read about or listen to each and every response that comes out and then put all the pieces together.

I can go through this news sub-forum and find may excellent articles by different people and get a picture of what happened. But that’s because it’s all here under one forum. How many people have this kind of access? Most people turn on their TV and hear one report. They pick up their news paper and hear another report. They walk away feeling that there is a missing piece, which there is. The missing piece is the report that did not come out in the news, but came out in some journal or on some Catholic blog or on Zenit, which no one ever sees unless their looking for it, or even a diocesan newspaper. Do you see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[zab]

I agree with Thomas Peter’s comment on the John Allen report :

I do not always agree with John Allen’s take, as much as I respect his experience. I think Pope Benedict is choosing to respond to the “public relations crisis” which has been hyped by the media on his own terms, and not the media’s. The pope can’t control what the media says, but he can control what he does. He has chosen, therefore, to meet with victims of clerical abuse – who are the real center of this tragedy – instead of giving the media what it wants (a press conference with the pope, etc).
After all, the pope’s meeting with abuse victims, and his expression of sorrow on behalf of the Church, and solidarity with them, can do more to heal the hearts of those who have been hurt and sinned against, than all the sensational stories and op-eds the media could ever publish.
catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php

 

[JReducation]

I agree with Thomas Peter’s comment on the John Allen report :

I do not always agree with John Allen’s take, as much as I respect his experience. I think Pope Benedict is choosing to respond to the “public relations crisis” which has been hyped by the media on his own terms, and not the media’s. The pope can’t control what the media says, but he can control what he does. He has chosen, therefore, to meet with victims of clerical abuse – who are the real center of this tragedy – instead of giving the media what it wants (a press conference with the pope, etc).
After all, the pope’s meeting with abuse victims, and his expression of sorrow on behalf of the Church, and solidarity with them, can do more to heal the hearts of those who have been hurt and sinned against, than all the sensational stories and op-eds the media could ever publish.
catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php

I don’t think anyone who does crisis management would advise the Pope to hold a press conference on this issue. That would be contrary to what the papacy represents. I believe that the advise would be for the people who surround the pope not to respond to everything that they read or hear without consulting. I think that what happens is that pieces of information can be misconstrued. It would be much better if the responses came from a single source, in this case the Vatican Press Office. That’s their job. I believe that many on the Vatican staff are trying to help, but they are getting the way of the Vatican Press Office. I could be wrong, but that’s the way it looks to me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AnotherVoice]

I don’t think anyone who does crisis management would advise the Pope to hold a press conference on this issue. That would be contrary to what the papacy represents. I believe that the advise would be for the people who surround the pope not to respond to everything that they read or hear without consulting. I think that what happens is that pieces of information can be misconstrued. It would be much better if the responses came from a single source, in this case the Vatican Press Office. That’s their job. I believe that many on the Vatican staff are trying to help, but they are getting the way of the Vatican Press Office. I could be wrong, but that’s the way it looks to me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree that a press conference would not be a good choice for addressing this. While I don’t know for sure, a professional crisis management may want to have all comments coordinated through a very small number of Papal Nuncios from key areas of the world. This may serve to keep the controversy in or near the country of origin and not place Rome at the center but still be small enough to foster consistency.

 

[JReducation]

I agree that a press conference would not be a good choice for addressing this. While I don’t know for sure, a professional crisis management may want to have all comments coordinated through a very small number of Papal Nuncios from key areas of the world. This may serve to keep the controversy in or near the country of origin and not place Rome at the center but still be small enough to foster consistency.

That’s an interesting thought. I gues the only problem with that is that the job of the nuncio would have to expand. Normally the nuncio deals with the bishops of the nation where he is stationed and with the secular government. In other words, he’s an ambassador who speaks for the Vatican not for the local bishops.

But this is an interesting proposal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Biggie]

The Church already has a public relations firm - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is there something in the truth the Church should fear? It is the truth that sets us free. Or is it persecution the Church should fear? Then the Church is not worthy of its task. Is it sin the Church should fear? Then the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection were in vain.

Was the silence of Christ before his persecutors cowardice or strength? Our Lord did not seek vindication but with quiet equanimity embraced the truth. I believe this is also what the Pope is doing.