Thursday, September 16, 2010

The selective indignation of the anti-Catholic media

The Pope's visits England is engendering the predictable criticism of the Catholic Church. All those people who've heard the reports, many of them mistaken or exaggerated (largely because they have done little research beyond reading the popular press accounts largely written by people with the same problem), about the priest sex abuse scandal. Many of them lay the blame at Pope Benedict's feet when not only has he been the first to come out and take the blame for it, but, in fact, he has been the one who's been trying to clean up the mess.

But a large part of what makes the criticism so self-serving and disingenuous is that while children are safer in the Catholic Church than virtually any other institution, the abuses that endemic in other institutions are virtually ignored.

Here is George Weigel, writing in First Things last may:
The sexual and physical abuse of children and young people is a global plague; its manifestations run the gamut from fondling by teachers to rape by uncles to kidnapping-and-sex-trafficking. In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse. Forty to sixty percent were abused by family members, including stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of a child’s mother—thus suggesting that abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution, the breakdown of marriage, and the hook-up culture. Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Yet in a pattern exemplifying the dog’s behavior in Proverbs 26:11, the sexual abuse story in the global media is almost entirely a Catholic story, in which the Catholic Church is portrayed as the epicenter of the sexual abuse of the young, with hints of an ecclesiastical criminal conspiracy involving sexual predators whose predations continue today. That the vast majority of the abuse cases in the United States took place decades ago is of no consequence to this story line. For the narrative that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure, the safest environment for young people in America today) than it is about taking the Church down—and, eventually, out, both financially and as a credible voice in the public debate over public policy. For if the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of sexual abusers and their protectors, then the Catholic Church has no claim to a place at the table of public moral argument.
Read the rest here.

24 comments:

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Many of them lay the blame at Pope Benedict's feet when not only has he been the first to come out and take the blame for it, but, in fact, he has been the one who's been trying to clean up the mess."

This provides an interesting contrast to the issue of what are God's one true set of immutable moral laws, since actual evidence exists to establish Ratzinger's role in the sex abuse controversy. As head of the Inquisition, Ratzinger was an architect of the coverup. His order to the Bishops was that they were not to report rape and abuse allegations to civilian authorities, upon pain of excommunication. If he had his way, these crimes would have been buried and forgotten-it has been government investigations and civil lawsuits which have exposed them to the light of day. In fact Ratzinger's actions were typical of what caused the problem to be so acute-as an Archbishop, he sent a child molester to therapy, who was then allowed back into ministry to abuse again.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I have already addressed these issues in the American cases. The charges there are completely unfounded, as was easily discovered by reading the actual documentation in the cases, which I did. Are you referring to these cases or those in Europe? If so, which ones?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

You can read about it at www.tinyurl.com/ratzingercoverup

Martin Cothran said...

Oh, Christopher Hitchen's now there's an objectives primary source. We'll see what it says.

Singring said...

'The charges there are completely unfounded, as was easily discovered by reading the actual documentation in the cases, which I did. Are you referring to these cases or those in Europe? If so, which ones?'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,684970,00.html

Is SPIEGEL a credible enough source for you?

I would also suggest you watch the documentary 'Deliver us from evil', but then again I don't think you have the guts to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scW90Q6Z_OM

It still bogles my mind that people will defend a person who wrote an official document telling church officials to cover up child abuse cases. That's all the evidence you ever need.

And yet, Martin, you want to defend a man who has officially protected child rapists. Who is still doing it today. Father O'Grady, a multiple and self-confessed child rapist who is the centre focus of the documentary above is currently living in Ireland, a free man, housed and paid on a church pension. The Pope knows. The Pope does nothing. Cardinal Brady, head of the church in Ireland, has confessed to asking abused teenagers to sign oaths of silence about their abuse. He is refusing to resign. The Pope does nothing. Instead, the Pope has his spokesman come out and say that all these child rape allegations are only 'rumours' and writes a letter to the Irish people in which he blames 'secular society' for the abuses. Is THAT what passes for 'cleaning up the mess' in Kentucky?

'Many of them lay the blame at Pope Benedict's feet when not only has he been the first to come out and take the blame for it, but, in fact, he has been the one who's been trying to clean up the mess.'

The single most misguided and almost comically false statement I have read on your blog yet, Martin.

Defending those who foster and shelter child abusers. I didn't think you'd stoop that low.

Singring said...

One final thing:

The excuse 'others are doing it too' is so pathetic I don't think it warrants a response.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Have you read the letter Hitchens refered to?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Have you read any of the actual documents in these cases, or are you simply repeating charges from the popular media who regularly get it wrong, as the New York Times did earlier this year?

Singring said...

'Have you read any of the actual documents in these cases, or are you simply repeating charges from the popular media who regularly get it wrong, as the New York Times did earlier this year?'

No, I have not read the actual documents. Funny thing is, I tend to trust investigative journalism of the Spiegel, which is pretty much the most respected news journal in Europe at this time.

Ironic also that you wrote several posts on Hawking's work and position without having read his book, only having read a WSJ article. That was OK, apparently, but if I do it, you come back with a smarmy dodge. You enver seem top have the chutzpah to actually adress anything anyone says, but revel in asking oh so clever questions in response.

Have YOU even read the article I linked to? Apparently not.

Cardinal Brady has publicly confessed to his actions. It has since emerged that oaths of silence were taken from other teens who were abused. This is all a matter of public record. And what has the Pope done?

Nothing.

Father O'Grady is on public record. In the movie I mentioned, he confesses and describes in minute detail some of the dozens of abuses he perpetrated. He describes how the church leaders knew and sheltered him. He is now living in Ireland on a Church pension, a free man, a member of the Church. The Pope has done nothing. Its a matter of public record.

Yeah - THAT'S what I call tackling the problem of child abuse.

You can hide behind feigned ignorance all you want, Martin. It just makes you look more of an apologist for their actions.

You also seem to have forgotten that the current Pope wrote the document that lays out the secrecy policy of the Church regarding child rape allegations.

It's called 'Crimen Sollicitationis' and sionce you know Latin, Martin, I'm sure you have read the original. I have read the English translation.

Never mind about all the other cases that happened on the Pope's watch, he wrote the very document that clearly lays out what is to be done when child abuse is reported to the Church:

This is the oath members of tribunals investigating a chuild abuse case under Canon Law had to take:

'I do promise, vow and swear that I will maintain inviolate secrecy about each and every thing brought to my knowledge in the performance of my aforesaid function, excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect … and that I will never directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff.'

Secrecy is number one.

Child protection?

Not that important.

Every line you spend here denying this just makes me think less of you.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you are in favor of organizations having a completely open process when it comes to investigating allegations involving personnel?

Singring said...

'So you are in favor of organizations having a completely open process when it comes to investigating allegations involving personnel?'

Priceless.

In lieu of any cogent argumentation or indication as to whether or not you have checked the evidence and what your position on it is, you come out with yet another deflective question.

Which, yet again, I will answer:

Any private or public organization can handle any offenses it deems troubling THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY PUBLIC OR CRIMINAL LAW any way it wants to. If the Catholic Church wants to hold tribunals on excommunicating priests who ordain women or break their vows of celibacy - then I'll let them have thier fun. Becuase those acts do not involve criminal or public law.

However, when an organization lays out precise and extremely strict rules telling all of its members to keep any criminal activity (such as CHILD RAPE) that is brought to their attention secret for up to 28 years (!!!), thereby not only neglecting to follow criminal law proceedings everyone else has to abide to, but instead obstructing justice - then I will do everything in my power to oppose such an organization.

Apparently you would not. Apparently you think its perfectly fine for the Church to keep child rapists sheletered and safe, to lie to law enforcement agencies aboput them, to withhold evidence and docuemnts, to move them around so law enforcement can't find them, to pay their pensions and keep them in office despite their offences.

Apparently, you think all that is par for the course.

Which yet again smacks of complete irony, seeing as it is you who keeps trumpeting the horn of moral superiority and attacking atheists for their lack thereof.

Let me ask you this, Martin:

If your local school was found to have sheltered, protected and kept secret child rapists, based on some internal procedure they have laid out to deal with allegations - would you think that is OK?

Would you defend the principal who wrote a document telling all his employees on pain of eternal damnation that they are not to speak of these matters to anyone outside of their circle?

Would you?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I feel a little strange arguing for commonly used practices of confidentiality in personnel issues with someone who posts anonymously on my blog.

And I also feel a little strange arguing with someone who professes to be so enamored of science, but who makes bald appeals to authority, such as that I should consider a newspaper as a competent source on an issue of church governance where they have little expertise--and on an issues on which newspapers regularly get it wrong.

I am supposed to trust Der Speigel, because it is the "most trusted journal in Europe," when I can't even trust the New York Times, even though many consider it the "most trusted" newspaper in America.

Periodicals in Europe are getting stories about the Catholic Church wrong just as they are in America. Why should I trust them on this?

I know you love to throw up a bunch of extraneous objections every time I post about something, and I don't necessarily mind it as long as it has something to do with the original post. But on this issue--of Benedict's involvement in child abuse cases, every time someone pops up on my blog and makes a charge against Benedict and I look a little further into the matter, it turns out that they have based their opinions on secondary sources, and that when I go back and read the primary sources, it is nothing like it was reported.

This is the case with Ratzinger's involvement in the American cases and, as I've discovered over the last few days, with the matter of the so-called cover-up, which I will be blogging about this week.

Of course, these kinds of charges are made on my blog by anonymous posters like you who get on here and who don't even have the integrity to identify themselves, and somehow think that because they are completely unaccountable to anyone for their comments they can make wild charges when they haven't even read the relevant documents.

You talk about my remarks being ironic? Did it ever occur to you that publicly accusing someone of instituting a veil of secrecy in these cases when you yourself are hiding behind a veil of secrecy while making these charges?

Could it possibly be because you are not really a biologist as you claimed on an earlier thread?

This is the second or third time I've asked that question on this blog and you've dodged it every time--probably because you were too busy accusing me of dodging the extraneous issues you keep bring up.

So now, back to the issue. I'll ask you the same thing I asked KyCobb when we started this discussion: Have you read the letter in which Ratzinger purportedly tells bishops to keep all of this quiet?

Singring said...

Another thigh-slapper there, Martin.

First off, yes I am posting quasi-anonymously, though if you did a little clicking you would be able to find a photograph of me on my blog as well as some pictures regarding me research. You will also see where I live. The reason I don't bandy my name about is that I have received physical threats from religionists ('If I ever meet you I will rip your face open') - so maybe you can understand that I have my reasons.

As to your pathetic assaults on my character (i.e. you continued insistence on questioning my honesty), I really don't care. It simply reveals the base level of argument you drive. You seem to think ad hominem attacks count for argument. What is the point of questioning my scientific credentials in a post about papal conduct?

'I feel a little strange arguing for commonly used practices of confidentiality'

Oh? So oaths of silence that extend for up to 28 years after the initial report of child rape are 'commonly used practices of confidentiality'? Really? Asking abused teenagers to swear oaths of confidentiality about their experience - is that 'common' too? Would you institute such a policy in your family research organisation in Kentucky? Interesting.

'Of course, these kinds of charges are made on my blog by anonymous posters like you who get on here and who don't even have the integrity to identify themselves'

Just for your information: I have signed a petition to arrest the pope in Britain with my full name, so I am fully prepared to make these charges in person.

Now let's deal with the few scraps of substance that were strewn about your latest post.

I don't trust Der Spiegel just because - I trust it in this instance because it is reporting on a case that has been corroberated by other news sources in Germany and has been confirmed by at least one of the parishes involved. In fact, they already had the fall-guy confess. Had you read the article, you would know. The report is also not at all surprising - it fits completely with the pattern we have seen so far. So I have no reason not to trust it.

What I do have reason not to trust is your prima-facie dismissal of it, without even having read it.

'I know you love to throw up a bunch of extraneous objections every time I post about something, and I don't necessarily mind it as long as it has something to do with the original post.'

What exactly about my initial post on this matter has been 'extraneous'?

'Have you read the letter in which Ratzinger purportedly tells bishops to keep all of this quiet?'

If yo are referring to 'Crimen Sollicitationis', then yes - I have read it. At least those parts that I could find in English translation. Funnily enough, I asked YOU whether you ahd read it in my last post. Which you seem to have missed yet again.

Have YOU read that document? I have not received an answer.

Nor have you answered what your response would be to a similar scenario occuring in a local school near you.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Well, you just stepped it in like I knew you would. I asked you about the letter from Ratzinger to the bishops. In response, you said, "If yo[u] are referring to 'Crimen Sollicitationis', then yes - I have read it."

I hear the gong sounding.

Crimen Sollicitationis is NOT the letter Ratzinger sent to the bishops in 2001. Crimen Sollicitationis was written and released in 1962 and Ratzinger had NOTHING to do with it.

This is why you need to be familiar with the actual documents before you go around accusing people of things--so you don't make boneheaded statements like this.

You haven't even read the letter that everyone is basing these charges on.

Just keep reading Der Speigel and everything will be okay. Or maybe you could just stick your head in the ground and repeat "The Pope is a criminal, the Pope is a criminal" and hope all the actual evidence goes away.

Singring said...

'Crimen Sollicitationis is NOT the letter Ratzinger sent to the bishops in 2001. Crimen Sollicitationis was written and released in 1962 and Ratzinger had NOTHING to do with it'

That's why I asked you IF you were referring to it, Martin.

I have read the English translation of said letter as well (what is available). You know, the one where the now Pope gives the actual timeframe things should be kept secret (up to 28 years).

You have not asnwered any of my questions.

You have not adressed any of the actual content of the Spiegel article, of the confessions of Cardinal Brady or of the actions of teh Church regarding Father O'Brady.

Somehow you think that constantly asking counter-questions and then doing a little victory dance when you think you have caught me in a mistake substitutes for an argument or even a position.

I am very, very happy with the record, Martin.

As long as you don't adress any of the issues raised, we will just have to assume that you are okay with the actions of the Church in these matters.

Martin Cothran said...

Oh, brother. I think I'm fighting the tar baby here.

Singring said...

The feeling is mutual.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

You got it wrong. Admit it. I have not read what Der Speigel said because WHAT DER SPEIGEL SAID HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT RATZINGER SAID IN THE LETTER THAT YOU AND KYCOBB SAID IS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES THAT RATZINGER WAS HEADING A COVER UP.

This is what this thread started with and we're going to stay right with it until you and KyCobb can demonstrated what you said he did in it.

Here's the rules on this thread Singring: we handle one accusation at a time. What you want to do is throw in all these extraneous things. You do this on every post: I make a point and you come in with all kinds of objections that have nothing to do with the main point and so I've got go swatting all of these little charges down while the main point gets completely lost.

Here's what we're discussing now: whether Pope Benedict in his previous persona as Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to the bishops in which he advised a cover-up.

Don't try to wriggle out of it. Don't talk about Der Speigel unless it bears on this point. You screwed up and here come all the other little points that we're supposed to talk about so that we can obscure that fact that you got it wrong and you don't have a clue about what Ratzinger's letter said.

(Quick go look it upon Wikipedia!)

Singring said...

'WHAT DER SPEIGEL SAID HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT RATZINGER SAID IN THE LETTER THAT YOU AND KYCOBB SAID IS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES THAT RATZINGER WAS HEADING A COVER UP.'

If you will check back to my very first post in response to your article mentioned the Spiegel article as a direct indication of the Pope's involvement in a cover-up. Had you read the article , you would know that. In fact, I directly posted it in response to your question to Ky:

'Are you referring to these cases or those in Europe? If so, which ones?'

So I answer that question and what happens?

1.) You refuse to read the article in question and instead start asking me questions

2.) You start deflecting the issue by changing the subject to the Pope's letter.

3.) You accuse ME of changing the subject and insist that the Pope's letter has been the issue all along when it has not.

So it is YOU who is doing the wriggling and the record is very clear.

So please, Martin, instead of just dismissing an article prima facie, how about reading it and adressing the issues it raises?

After all it as YOU who asked for direct evidence from Europe, remember?

'Here's the rules on this thread Singring: we handle one accusation at a time.'

That would be a great rule if yous tuck to it, Matrin.

My very first post on this issue gave the Spiegel article and examples from ireland that pertained directly to your request for examples from Europe.

Now all of a sudden you want to talk exclusively about the Pope's letter (which I have adressed in my recent posts).

Rules are great. Let's see you stick to them once in a while.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Stop the ADHD routine and FOCUS. When I asked KyCobb that question, he responded by giving a link to (of all things) an article by Christopher Hitchens in Slate. That's the first issue on this thread and that's the one we're dealing with.

We're not going to flit to another topic like you love to do every time we hone on the problem.

In this case the problem is that Christopher Hitchens blew it and so did you. You completely confused Crimen Sollicitationis and De Delictis Gravioribus, that latter being the letter Ratzinger actually sent and the former being a document from almost 40 years ago.

So what do you want to do? You want to change the subject. We're not changing the subject until we get this one straightened out. I said the enemies of Ratzinger keep blowing it because they keep passing along errors that could easily be cleared up by looking at the original documents. And right after you blow this off as unnecessary, you stepped right in it.

That's what we're talking about this week. You can bring your Der Speigel article up after we have settled this issue.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I have read an english translation of the letter, and the translation I read does say that the cases are subject to the pontifical secret. There is also the example of Ratzinger's own handling of one of these cases, in which a child molester was sent to therapy and then allowed to return to pastoral work, and engaged in further child abuse.

Singring said...

Fair enough, Martin. But I do wonder why you insisted on dismissing the Spiegel article without having read it and directly asked my if I had read the documents involved. If you wanted to stay on the letter, why did you not say so? Why wait several posts before suddenly deciding now was the time to insist on sticking to that?

Anyway, on the letter.

Do you deny that it upholds CS?

Do you deny that it upholds the papal secret in these cases (as KyCobb states).

Do you deny that it lays out a period of up yo 28 years of complete secrecy for child rape offenses?

Do you deny that it does not mention the onvolvements of criminal proceedings or cooperation with secular prosecuters anywhere?

Where exactly does the letter state that priests accused of child rape are to be handed over to civil authorities for prosecution?

If you think that is not necessary, then would it be OK for, say, the US Government to implement a similar policiy to deal with child rapists in US schools? If not, why not?

Singring said...

...and once again: Silence.