NCR, Allen on The Pope's Problems

Former Vatican correspondent John Allen is one of the last people in the Church whom I would accuse of a cover-up. He's been well-known through the years as one who knows the Vatican scene extremely well and describes it with clarity and transparency. He's probably my favorite Church writer, and I feel I can count on him to give me the "straight stuff." So when his weekly blog chose to point out some widely distributed factual errors in the rising outcry about the Pope's handling of sex-abuse issues (see Keeping the Record Straight on Benedict and the Crisis), I pay attention.

He states: "...as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion." He goes on affirm that: 1) as Cardinal Ratzinger, the pope was not the "Vatican point man, with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis, from 1981 thru 2005" as is widely stated, since bishops were not required to send these cases to the Vatican until 2001, unless abuse of the sacrament of Reconciliation was also involved; 2) his May 2001 letter to the world's bishops regarding secrecy was not a "smoking gun" ordering bishops to keep these matters secret, as it is being widely described, since he was dealing with secrecy required during the internal disciplinary process; and 3) the reports of 3000 cases being sent to Rome, of which only 20% proceeded to canonical trials, is not evidence of Vatican inaction on the other 80%, because "for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming."

Allen says that he does not intend to excuse Pope Benedict, nor imply that these clarifications "suggest that Benedict's handling of the crisis -- in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope -- is somehow exemplary." Allen's paper, the National Catholic Reporter, has also just issued an editorial calling for the Vatican to "directly answer questions, in a credible forum, about his role -- as archbishop of Munich (1977-82), as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1982-2005), and as pope (2005-present) -- in the mismanagement of the clergy sex abuse crisis." The editorial, "Credibility Gap: Pope Needs to Answer Questions," merely voices what victims, the media, and probably most faithful Catholics have felt about these tragic events for years. As NCR puts it, this episode -- together with the Church's response in the past -- has an all-too-familiar ring:

"Like it or not, this new focus on the pope and his actions as an archbishop and Vatican official fits the distressing logic of this scandal. For those who have followed this tragedy over the years, the whole episode seems familiar: accusation, revelation, denial and obfuscation, with no bishop held accountable for actions taken on their watch."

As disgusting and revolting as the actions of priest perpetrators have been, as damaging as those actions were to their victims and their families, the response or lack thereof by many of our Church leaders -- then and now -- has damaged our Church more. Someone I love and respect said of these recent events: "I don't know if I can hang in there with our Church anymore; it just seems that our Institution is corrupt to the core."

This hits me in the stomach, and in the heart.