This observation is spot-on:
Some blame the scandals on Pope Benedict XVI. But Joseph Ratzinger is the man who, weeks before his accession to the papacy five years ago, spoke blisteringly on Good Friday of the "filth" in the church. Days later on the streets of Rome, the Italian newspaper La Stampa reported, Cardinal Ratzinger bumped into a curial monsignor who chided him for his sharp words. The cardinal replied, "You weren't born yesterday, you understand what I'm talking about, you know what it means. We priests. We priests!" The most reliable commentary on Pope Benedict's role in the scandals came from John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who argues that once Benedict came to fully understand the scope of the crisis, in 2003, he made the church's first real progress toward coming to grips with it.That is true. What's frustrating are observations like this one:
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.
To buttress her argument, Noonan goes on at some length to praise the 2002 reporting of the Boston Globe. She's quite correct that the reporting the Globe did was helpful and utterly necessary. I'm not so convinced that is true in 2010. The facts matter -- horrible things happened in Milwaukee and in Ireland. We need to know these things. But as Noonan clearly realizes, the criticism of Benedict is off-base. And to claim that the press is the Church's best friend hardly makes sense when the friend is making unfair criticisms. Friends don't make unfair criticisms.
There's a lot more to say about this matter, of course, but we'll leave it there for now.
3 comments:
The only friend that the press cares about is *money*. But I think she makes a terrific point, and that it's important that the press didn't stop reporting after 2002. To say that the coverage is "unfair"...well what does that mean? That they only reflect on the most sensational items? I suppose. But that's all news stories, not just Church scandals. So, to discuss the extent to which press coverage is unfair seems moot to me. I know how it feels to be a Catholic amid scandals like this (I used to be "more Catholic" in the past) and how frustrating it is to feel the judgement of other people on your church. With all my empathy toward the good people in the Church left to pick up the pieces, I feel that current press converage is an opportunity. The time is for transparency. If there are documents or evidence that prove ANYTHING relevant, the Church needs to come out with them. Or they need a great press person to come out and clarify what's true, untrue, or sorta true. (Moreover, the public in general could use some education about exactly how the hierarchy works. Even very intelligent Protestant friends of mine have weird perceptions of the role of the Pope, and basically everything about the hierarchy.)
Catholic clergy members do not actually have the highest rates of sexual assault, compared to people in other professions - but the story is sensational because, obviously, these are supposed to be holy people, because of the Church's famously repressed sexual attitudes, and most of all, because for years they actively sought to hide the problem from the public and law authorities. They have an opportunity to come clean and take some responsibility, and things aren't going to get better until they do.
Amanda,
I agree with pretty much everything you've said. It's awfully tough to explain Catholicism to someone who didn't grow up in the faith, as you and I both have.
What frustrates me right now is that Benedict really has been part of the solution and he's being made into some sort of monster by people who don't and (more importantly) won't understand his role. And while Noonan is right about the importance of telling the stories in full, I guess I'm not willing to accept the notion that those commenters who are enemies of the Church (meaning all Catholics, not the hierarchy) have any standing to tell us how we should feel.
It's hard to explain all this, isn't it?
I agree with your assessment of her column exactly. And I think that she's right that the media helped expose the scandal that had to be exposed. But now? pfftt. Hitting back because of the opposition to Obamacare.
Post a Comment