Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope
By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 10, 2010
We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.
The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."
First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.
Now the key questions:
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.
We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.
Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.
The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.
Put that in your pipe and smokes Detterling.
Put that in your pipe and smokes Dawkins.
Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
The usual Gene tactic - bluster and obfuscation. Cross reference this with the post on Kiesle you put up yesterday - you will see how Mr Lawler has adjusted emphases, fudged dates and omitted facts. To take but one example:
ReplyDelete"Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood."
This is a lie. Kiesle was arrested in 2002 for thirteen offences committed during the 1960s and 1970s and only the fact that the statute of limitations in California worked in his favour prevented his receiving a very long sentence.
As usual, Gene has nothing to say, so resorts to biased and selectively edited journalism. As I said, it won't wash.
This article blows you and Dawkins out of the water - and you know it.
ReplyDeleteGENE
"This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct."
ReplyDeleteAll this was known to Dawkins before he put together his malicious accusations. But of course the truth has no priority with Dawkins - or with you Detterling.
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT
GENE
"This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry".
DeleteThis is a lie.
In 1981 Kiesle moved to Pinole, California where HE WORKED AS A YOUTH MINISTER at St. Joseph’s from 1985 until 1988.
"The Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct."
This is a lie.
Only because Ratzinger had so efficiently hushed up Kiesle's disgrace in Oakland was the parish priest at St Joseph's at the time, Fr Thomas Ryan, presumably in ignorance of Kiesle's history.
Two lies from this unbiased journalist's story - par for the course for any source Gene cites.
"But of course the truth has no priority with Dawkins - or with you Detterling."
This from the man who claims that his dreadful offence against belles lettres, "Granny Barkes buggered a choirboy in St Michael's back passage" or whatever it was called, received favourable reviews from A N Wilson and Arianna Huffington. Pathetic.
And you still won't answer why the State of California did not have this man put on the sex offenders register. That speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteI haven't answered because I don't know why and, unlike you, I don't make stuff up when I don't know the answer.
DeleteOne possible reason is that, in their anxiety to get Kiesle off their books [the bishop of Oakland] and to conceal and brush under the carpet his appalling crimes [Ratzinger], the Church did not carry out its pastoral duty to Kiesle by placing him beyond reach of children, or its civic duty to the state of California by making sure that he was properly supervised. Had the church urged on the civil authorities to register him they would probably have done so, although it would, of course, attracted a lot of publicity, something that Ratzinger wished to avoid, even at the risk of exposing more small boys to buggery.
Why not abandon the habit of a lifetime, and address the points I make above? Ooops! sorry, I forgot, you won't because you can't.
All this is covered and answered by the article written by Mr Lawlor.
ReplyDeleteThis man Kiesle was not employed as a priest from 1979. He would never have had access to children had the State authorities in California put him on the sex offenders register. That is their responsibility - not the responsibility of the Church as the Church does not administer the register.
My Lawlor's article blows you and the appalling Dawkins out of the water - and you know it.
Any unbiased reader (such as myself) of this material will see that there is no case against the Church or indeed against Cardinal Ratzinger but that there is a serious case against the State of California.
ReplyDeleteHans Castorp
Oh, grow up, Gene.
ReplyDelete"Because Ratzinger had so efficiently hushed up Kiesle's disgrace"
ReplyDeleteRatzinger did no such thing. You are not following this story properly are you Detterling?
Still no comment on the State of California's neglecting to place Kiesle on the sex offenders register I note.
GENE
"my post of 07.00 on March 14th deals précisely with why Kiesle was not placed on the sex offenders register by the state of California."
DeleteYour post of 07.00 wrongly places the responsibility for this appalling man not being placed on the sex offenders register on the Catholic Church. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
This man was convicted by the courts of sickening crimes. It was the State of California's responsibility to place him on the sex offenders register. It, inexplicable, did not do so which meant he had subsequent access to children.
"Your post of 07.00 wrongly places the responsibility for this appalling man not being placed on the sex offenders register on the Catholic Church. Wrong, wrong, wrong."
DeleteNo it doesn't. In the first place I state - what is true - that I don't know the answer, any more than you do.
I go on to SUGGEST - not state - a POSSIBLE REASON, for which Ratzinger and the bishop of Oakland [NOT the Catholic church as an institution] for why Kiesle was not placed on the sex offenders' register.
I agree that it is inexplicable, that the state of California did not do so which meant he had subsequent access to children. At the same time, had Ratzinger and the bishop of Oakland urged this court of action on the Californian State then it is more likely that Kiesle would have been treated as he should have been, but at the cost of national publicity which Ratzinger was prepared to do anything - even to placing children at the risk of being buggered by Kiesle in the future - to avoid.
As always, Gene, you have read what you wished to read. Were you able to take off your blinkers, you would acknowledge that Ratzinger and the bishop shared the responsibility for Kiesle's not being placed on the register. Which is what I suggested - the use of the phrase "one possible reason" is your clue. Don't put words in my mouth, you duplicitous bastard.
Maybe you think you can get off this hook by deleting this post every time I put it up [as you have been doing for the past three days].
ReplyDeleteIf you persist in doing so I will revert to plan B - which is to send Ms Huffington and Mr Wilson each a copy of "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths" along with screen shots of their alleged reviews of it and a dossier of all the personal details I have of you, and let nature take its course.
I would give anything to be in the Good Yarn tonight. Will uproarious laughter ring throughout the huge pub? Is the Pope a Catholic?
ReplyDeleteSo, inevitably. you have thrown in the towel, as you always signify by posting something totally irrelevant. Nobody in The Good Yarn cares two straws for your pissy little opinions anyway.
DeleteDetterling read this - in fact read the whole of Mr Lawlor's article. You are not following this story properly.
ReplyDelete"Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective."
"Maybe you think you can get off this hook by deleting this post every time I put it up [as you have been doing for the past three days]."
ReplyDeleteI have never deleted any such posts you lying so-and-so.
GENE
Bollocks.
ReplyDelete"Detterling read this - in fact read the whole of Mr Lawlor's article. "
I have read it, and it is a pack of lies where it is not heavily slanted apologetics for the dreadful crimes of Ratzinger in excusing, covering up and in effect conniving at the rape and buggery of small girls and boys and vulnerable adults of both sexes.
"Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective."
"You are not following this story properly."
By which you mean I am not swallowing Mr Lawler's propaganda whole and am consulting a wide variety of sources to get a balanced picture. I am following it properly, and following it to an extent that makes a nonsense of your feeble and futile efforts to let Ratziinger off the hook.
As for this:
"Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.", just stop flannelling.
What this means, if it means anything, is that reporting the rape and buggery of small children, and its subsequent excusing and concealing [not to mention objectively conniving at the further rape and buggery of small children and vulnerable adults] is a skill requiring special expertise in presenting the facts such that Joseph Ratzinger comes up smelling of roses instead of smelling of the shit he has expected to get away with.
In other words, if only we had explained to us by specially briefed Catholic apologists [who are, of course, always impeccably objective] how covering up and conniving at the rape and buggery of small children and vulnerable adults is all part of the proper function of the Catholic hierarchy, we would see that Ratzinger had no case to answer.
What insulting, offensively simple minded bollocks. Even judged as contemptible, self-serving, deceitful shit that is contemptible, self-serving, deceitful shit.
Stop insulting my intelligence, you despicable little turd.
In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.
FOR THE LAST TIME:
Maybe you think you can get off this hook by deleting this post every time I put it up [as you have been doing for the past three days].
If you persist in doing so I will revert to plan B - which is to send Ms Huffington and Mr Wilson each a copy of "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths" along with screen shots of their alleged reviews of it and a dossier of all the personal details I have of you, and let nature take its course.
Laughter is ringing out into the Uxbridge High Street from the Good Yarn. And how could it not?
ReplyDelete"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them."
Ha! Ha! Ha!
GENE
No, Gene, laughter is not ringing out from the Good Yarn, for the simple reason that no one but you cares about this, much less thinks it to be a laughing matter.
DeleteAnd the only reason you pretend that it is a laughing matter is because you know that Dawkins's parallel to the actual behaviour of Joseph Ratzinger shows Ratzinger up in the worst possible light - that of someone who has excused, concealed and connnived at the rape and buggery of small children and vulnerable adults.