Back in 2008 Bill Maher released a film, "Religulous," that led him to do an interview with his director, Larry Charles, on "Fresh Air." Hilarity ensued:
Larry Charles made a telling statement in the Terry Gross interview: he said they tried to contact the Pope and the head of the Mormon church and other religious leaders (all Christian, interestingly, or Western. No mention of Orthodox leaders, Buddhist monks, Hindu priests, Taoists, etc.), but there were "layers" (his word) of people designed to keep such persons from contact with the public, or at least Messrs. Charles and Maher. I wondered how many people I'd have to go through to get in touch with Mr. Charles, or the head of the studio distributing his film, or the heads of the TV companies who have broadcast his work; or the President of the United States, or any head of government or any major corporation. It was, in other words, a pretty mindless and petty complaint, and revealed more about Mr. Charles than about the religious leaders he sought out.
I thought of that blinkered ignorance when I read this:
But the pope didn’t mention the latest horrific news revealed about his church: that a Pennsylvania grand jury had just handed down a damning 1,356 page account of rampant abuse that involved 1,000 kids, 300 priests and 70 years of silence. "We, the members of this grand jury, need you to hear this," the report began. But there was no sign Wednesday that Pope Francis was listening. He offered no prayer for the victims of his own churchmen who have been suffocated under a veil of complicity and shame for decades.
Which silence, of course, means there's a coverup:
The cover-up of this sort of rampant sexual cruelty involving children is by now sadly familiar, as is the strategy by Rome refusing to acknowledge such accusations until far too late. The response to this report, like so many others before it, is also sadly familiar. A spokesperson for the Vatican reached on Wednesday morning said that the Vatican “has no comment at the moment” before tersely hanging up.
So, here's the problem: the Pope is not an elected official who needs to curry favor among voters at all times and in all places. Further, I don't imagine for a second the Pope was on a direct line to the meeting room of the grand jury in Philadelphia, or had a representative at the press conference on the line relaying their statements to the Vatican as they were being released, so the Vatican could prepare a response ASAP. Perhaps it is good PR for the institution to have a Rapid Response Team, but again: the Church is not a corporation answerable to shareholders and worried about what its CEO might tweet next about boys rescued from a cave in Thailand. This is not to excuse the Church for what happened in Pennsylvania for 7 decades, nor is it to defend the Church in any way.
But for pity's sake: the report is 900 pages long, (or is it almost 1400 pages? Who do I believe here, the Daily Best or the NYT?) covers 7 decades of records, and was released on August 14th. Only a few hours later (time zones, how do they work again?) the Pope is offering a public prayer and is supposed to work into that prayer a response that can be parsed and analyzed and dissected and STILL be a clear statement of the Church? And a failure to mention it in a prayer the next morning is tantamount to a coverup? What world do these people live in?
You know, there are times I understand better the nature of newspapers, with editors and just the passage of time between writing and printing the words on paper for distribution. Even today, with words available immediately (how long after I write this will you read it?), the editorial process of the NYT or WaPo or the LATimes is admirable, just because it keeps dribble like this from appearing anywhere except, maybe, on their journalists work-related blogs. If this is the advance achieved by instant and direct access to news and opinion, I don't need anymore of it. The Russians are damaging because they spread vile opinions on purpose, with the aim of destabilizing and sowing dragon's teeth. This kind of thing is damaging because it ostensibly presents reasoned thought, and not just childish tantrums.
When the Pope responds, his response will deserve careful attention and even criticism. But this kind of thing is just crap.
And the report comes from the Rome office. I wonder if any reporter would expect any secular leader to respond to something like that the day after it was released. Just the other day I had a heated discussion about the "babies in the septic tank" story which someone like Charlie Pierce still cites even though it was debunked years ago and every one of the claims the local and amateur historian who started the story and who the media goes to on it was either wildly exaggerated or false, the last time based on her not understanding the meaning of a medical term at the time it was used.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any institution that is expected to do what they insist the Catholic Church does in these instances, I have brought up the sex abuse scandals in a myriad of secular institutions and professions and there is always some slack cut. And that's not to mention people like Roman Polanski and Gore Vidal who get the "artists" indulgence, not to mention such corporations as Tumblr, which, by the way, was still full of obvious child porn when I put on the waders and last looked. I haven't felt up to writing on that issue for a while because it's disgusting to do the research. But, you know, "freedom of the press".