. . . but many senior prelates simply “don’t
get it” when addressing Western audiences. They either don’t understand,
or refuse to accept, the rules of public discourse as they exist in Western,
especially Anglo-Saxon, cultures.
|I spent much of
the last week responding to requests from various media outlets, such as
CNN, National Public Radio, NBC, and the BBC, to explain the Vatican reaction
to the sexual abuse crisis currently traumatizing the Catholic church in
the United States.
Making sense of the way
a bureaucracy responds when threatened is always a journalistic challenge,
requiring reporters to learn what officials are not saying, what
the internal conversations are that indicate possible strategies. It’s
a situation that tests the quality of a reporter’s sources and the depth
of his or her understanding.
When it comes to the
Vatican, however, there is an extra hurdle reporters have to get across,
a “cultural gap.” Senior personnel in the Vatican — not all, because there
are differences within the Roman curia as there are anywhere else — but
many senior prelates simply “don’t get it” when addressing Western audiences.
They either don’t understand, or refuse to accept, the rules of public
discourse as they exist in Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, cultures.
I don’t mean to imply
by this that any particular Vatican position is wrong, or that a secular
Western frame of reference is always the most helpful way of looking at
things. For the most part, I find that Vatican officials are careful and
reflective before taking public stands, and there is almost always much
truth to what they say. God knows many Western taboos and matters of conventional
wisdom virtually cry out for challenge.
Still, it’s sometimes
a four-aspirin journalistic headache trying to explain what the Vatican
is saying, when the way they choose to express it communicates, at best,
incomprehension, and, at worst, contempt for their public.
Two press conferences
from last week make the point.
* * *
On Thursday, March 21,
the annual Holy Thursday letter from the pope to the priests of the world
was presented in a Vatican press conference. As is the case every year,
Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, a Colombian who runs the Congregation
for Clergy, was on hand to present the letter to the press.
Off the record, Vatican
officials had tipped several of us a couple of days in advance that the
letter would contain a reference to the sexual abuse crisis. The New
York Times hinted that something would be coming, and 24 hours before
the news conference I said on CNN that the letter would contain an indirect
papal comment. Hence media interest, especially from the United States,
The Vatican knew what
was coming. An official told me on Wednesday, the day before the press
conference, that Castrillón Hoyos had been “briefed” about the sort
of things reporters were likely to ask.
One would think they
would have been ready.
Instead what happened,
as I said on CNN afterwards, and as veteran Italian Vaticanista Marco Politi
wrote the next day in La Repubblica, can only be described as “surreal.”
and his top aide, Archbishop Csaba Ternyák, read lengthy statements
commenting on the pope’s letter, which was mostly about the sacrament of
reconciliation. When they finished, the head of the Vatican press office,
Spanish layman Joaquín Navarro-Valls, invited reporters to ask questions.
First up was John Thavis
of the Catholic News Service, who asked what the Vatican response to the
sex abuse crisis would be, and how the church would assure that such problems
would not recur.
Like most of the rest
of us, John spoke in English, knowing that our radio and TV colleagues
needed soundbites in English. I then put four specific questions, which
I record here:
So it went. One reporter
after another offered similar queries. Robert Mickens of The Tablet,
an English Catholic journal, wanted to know why the language in the papal
letter about the sexual abuse problem was indirect. Stephen Weeke of NBC
asked why the pope wasn’t speaking himself, rather than signing a letter
and having someone else talk about it. The process must have taken 15 or
20 minutes. Castrillón Hoyos was taking careful notes, jotting down
every question as it was asked.
Will the Vatican support a “zero tolerance” policy,
under which any credible allegation of sexual misconduct against a priest
means he is automatically removed from ministry?
Will the Vatican support an “automatic reporter”
policy, under which any credible allegation of sexual misconduct against
a priest is automatically reported to the civic authorities?
What is the status of proposals, widely circulated
and debated with the Vatican in recent months, to ban the admission of
homosexuals to Catholic seminaries?
Does the Vatican still have full confidence in Cardinal
Bernard Law of Boston, or is there consideration of asking him to resign?
When we were finished,
Castrillón Hoyos refused to answer the questions he had so painstakingly
“I don’t want to take
more risks than are necessary,” he said, with a smile, and then produced
a two-page prepared statement which he said would constitute the only response
he could offer. It made two points: few priests are guilty of this sort
of misconduct, and the Catholic church has long had strong policies against
sexual abuse by clergy. He cited the 1917 Code of Canon Law as evidence.
To most of the journalists
present, the performance came off as evasive and insulting. Why waste our
time soliciting questions if you have no intention of telling us what we
want to know?
Later, as Castrillon
embarked on an unrelated topic, Bob Kaiser of Newsweek attempted
to get things back on track: “Your Eminence,” he broke in, “could you please
answer our questions?”
A peeved Castrillón
Hoyos responded: “I listened to your questions, and I would hope you’ll
listen when I’m speaking.”
Hoyos did go beyond his prepared statement several times in the course
of reading it aloud, adding small flourishes that only compounded the impression
of being “out of touch.”
First, when Castrillón
Hoyos started to speak, he observed that most of the questions had been
put in English. “That in itself is an x-ray of the problem,” he said, seeming
to suggest that the sex abuse crisis is largely an English-speaking phenomenon.
One could already hear teeth grinding.
Then, in arguing that
the Catholic church has never ignored the problem of sexual abuse, Castrillón
Hoyos added that this was true “even before it ended up on the front page
of newspapers.” Citing provisions of the Code of Canon Law that
fix penalties for sexual misconduct with minors, Castrillón Hoyos
issued a challenge: “For the non-Catholic world, I want to know what other
institutions have laws like this for defending children from the behavior
of officials? What other great institution?” he asked.
In noting that the church
has recently adopted a statute of limitations of 10 years from the date
when an alleged victim turns 18 for prosecuting sexual misconduct cases
against priests, Castrillón Hoyos noted again: “I would like to
know, has this been legislated elsewhere?”
Still later, in describing
new Vatican norms that insist priests should have a right of reply to charges
of abuse, Castrillón Hoyos said: “We live in an era of human rights,
not totalitarianism. This is an era of law.”
At the end, Castrillón
Hoyos defended the church’s preference for “keeping things within the family,”
which does not, he said, mean that the church refuses to cooperate with
the state, except when it comes to its sacramental secret. He then expressed
the pope’s solidarity with the priests and bishops of the United States,
but not (in what I can only assume was an unintentional omission) with
Had I been asked for
advice by Vatican spin doctors before the press conference, I would have
made just one point, given the present atmosphere of hurt and shock in
the American church: “Whatever you do, don’t seem defensive or unresponsive.”
managed to do both.
(A quick aside about
Castrillón Hoyos, before readers rush to judgment about him as an
uncaring bureaucrat. When he was bishop of Pereira in Colombia, he had
the guts to confront notorious drug baron Pablo Escobar, demanding that
he end a cycle of violence that was claiming civilian lives. When Escobar
condescendingly asked who Castrillón Hoyos represented, he replied:
“I represent He who one day will judge you.” Escobar backed down, and offered
to negotiate with the government.)
So, why did Castrillón
Hoyos not offer a similarly courageous, pastoral response on March 21?
The unspoken truth is that like many Vatican officials, he suspects that
there are a couple of hidden agendas behind the present outcry.
First, some Vatican officials
believe the crisis is being exaggerated and manipulated by liberal Catholics
pushing for change in church teaching on issues such as celibacy and the
ordination of women. The fact that progressive commentators such as Eugene
Kennedy and Richard McBrien have been quasi-ubiquitous in the press since
the story began reinforces these perceptions.
Second, Vatican officials
are also convinced that money is at the root of many of the current charges.
The desire to tap the deep pockets of the Catholic church, combined with
a tort law system that makes it relatively simple to establish corporate
liability, has generated a whole legal subspecialty focusing on sexual
abuse by clergy.
Are Vatican officials
wrong to think these things? Probably not. No doubt some activists are
trying to exploit the crisis to push their agendas, and a few lawyers are
probably eager to profit from it.
But in a moment of hurt
and shock, it’s not “opportune,” to use a favorite Vatican word, to express
pique or to defend the status quo. What people want to hear is compassion,
heartsickness, and a resolve to fix the problem. When Vatican officials
fail to read the situation appropriately, it makes explaining their concerns,
legitimate as they may be, much more difficult.
* * *
Another example, on a
much smaller scale. The day after the Castrillón Hoyos fiasco, the
Vatican hosted another press conference, this one to present the new Roman
Missal, the book that contains the prayers for the Mass.
On hand were Cardinal
Jorge Medina Estévez, the Chilean who heads the Congregation for
Divine Worship; his Italian secretary, Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino;
Monsignor Mario Marini, an under-secretary; and Fr. Anthony Ward, the congregation’s
top English-speaking official.
Medina has a reputation
as one of the strongest traditionalists in the Vatican, and in keeping
with his image, he insisted on starting the press conference with an “Our
Father” in Latin, something that is definitely not normal practice.
Medina is actually a
pleasant man, with an unexpectedly robust sense of humor. One thing journalists
appreciate is that he does not follow the dull habit of reading a prepared
statement at a news conference, the text of which we already have, but
he offers extemporaneous remarks that are usually helpful. In this instance,
he had a list of some of the changes in the new Missal that would
likely be of greatest journalistic interest.
It was in the course
of presenting this list that he threw in a comment that, for contemporary
Western audiences, could raise eyebrows and blood pressures.
Medina mentioned that
the new missal restores several elements from the older, 1962 missal (the
one embraced by the Lefebvrite Latin Mass movement), elements that had
been dropped from the 1970 post-Vatican II edition. One of them is a prayer
“for the remission of sins.”
He said that since the
concept of sin is “disappearing,” restoring this prayer is important. To
illustrate the point, he cited a television program he had watched the
night before in which someone spoke of marriage as an “agreement” that
could involve two men as well as a man and a woman.
“But this is a great
sin,” Medina insisted, referring to gay marriage. “This is sodomy, one
of the greatest sins in the Bible.”
That a senior Vatican
prelate is opposed to homosexual marriage is, of course, hardly a news
flash. But the offhand manner in which Medina referred to “sodomy” and
“great sin” could, to Western ears, sound bigoted and offensive. The Catholic
church has over the last 25 years developed a different vocabulary for
speaking to gays and lesbians, one that does not approve of homosexual
genital acts but that understands people with a homosexual orientation
as “always our children.” It’s language that expresses church teaching
in a more humane, pastoral fashion.
The press conference
was not carried live, and nobody has yet reported Medina’s comments. Yet
his use of language associated, at least in some parts of the world, with
hate crimes and gay-bashing underscores the gap that can stretch between
Catholic leaders and the public they’re trying to address.
The medium is, after
all, the message.
The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is
The National Catholic Reporter Publishing
115 E. Armour Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64111