Is the media to blame for Vatican bad press?

published in The Malta Independent April 18

Isn’t it rather ironic that some in the Catholic Church are crying witch hunt, claiming that the Church is being persecuted and conspired against, in response to the deluge of international bad press because of its appalling handling of children abused by Catholic priests.

I will no doubt be facing a witch hunt after this piece gets published, but here goes.

Pope Benedict is not getting any respite despite the Volcano eruption in Iceland, which brought most of Europe’s airlines to a halt, hogging the front page news.
And although not holding the front page the death toll from the earthquake in the remote region in western China is still rising and rightly getting media attention, yet still news stories on the Vatican’s abuse scandal abound.

The UK Times, Irish Times, Voice of America, Euronews and Expatica in the Netherlands all carried online stories on the Vatican’s continuing crisis in the last couple of days.

“Pope’s visit to Malta overshadowed by paedophile priest scandal” - Richard Owen, UK Times and “Abuse scandal ratchets up pressure on Vatican as Pope Benedict visits Malta”- Irish Times, Paddy Agnew, both in Rome yesterday.

And on Friday “Pope Heads to Malta, Where More Sex Abuse Victims Await” Voice of America - Sabina Castelfranco in Malta, “Malta abuse victims demand to meet Pope” -Euronews and “Sunny Malta – for those abdicating responsibility?” - Expatica item in week’s press review.

Earlier in the week, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, writing in The Tablet said some people in the media do, without any doubt, wish to damage the credibility of the Church.

Yet, he acknowledges “But we owe a debt of gratitude to the press for its insistence that the Church face its failures. If it had not been for the media, then this shameful abuse might have remained unaddressed.”

Why would some in the media want to damage the credibility of the Church? To quote a cliché “there is no smoke without fire”. The damage to the Church’s credibility lies with the way it conducted its business in relation to all the children abused by its priests.

If the media is right in “its insistence that the Church face its failures”, it cannot then be accused of persecuting the Church by doing so!

Locally, we had Father Joe Borg a Times blogger who thinks he is so clever by narrowing down the persecution to the journalists with “cheek”. Although, I would agree that some in the media exploit the sensational, I suppose he is not including his buddy Lou Bondi and the production company he (Lou) co-owns - Where’s Everybody.

By the by, isn’t interesting the way the victims in Malta, guided by Lou, have suddenly become very meek and accommodating. "We are very happy that our cries are now being heard by the church authorities, locally and at the Vatican. We are also very grateful that this good news is coming on the eve of Pope Benedict's XVI visit to Malta.

“All of us welcome the Pope to Malta with open arms and augur that his visit will leave the desired results," Joseph Magro, one of the victims of abuse, was reported as saying.

Father Borg quoted the conclusion of a report by the agency AFP posted on April 13: "The Vatican has adopted a strategy of blaming the media for playing up the paedophile revelations, accusing them of trying to smear the Pope." Trying to be cunningly funny, he responds to that statement with “Oh, I see, it is the Vatican's fault after all!”

Well actually, yes it is. The fault of this whole sorry saga lies fairly and squarely at the Vatican’s door. I find the way some in the Church are turning things round to portray the Church as the victim rather sickening.

Father James Scahill, in Massachusetts, dismissed repeated Vatican statements that blamed the media for highlighting the church’s child sex abuses and molestations. He said that the media had forced the Church to deal with the crisis more openly.

“I have met with countless victims of abuse,” he said. “I have lives I can relate this to and anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows the media has not created this scandal. The institutional Church has brought this onto themselves.”

He called on the pontiff to resign for the good of the Catholic Church. “If he can’t take the consequences of being truthful on this matter his integrity should lead him, for the good of the Church, to step down and to have the conclave of cardinals elect a Pope with the understanding that the elected Pope would be willing to take on this issue, not just in promise,” Father Scahill said.

It is unacceptable that the Vatican is passing the buck, and as the London Times called it playing - the blame game - and has been trying to argue that abusive priests were primarily the responsibility of bishops, not Rome.

Paddy Agnew in the Irish Times put it rather well “To some extent, this defence of Benedict, however accurate and genuine, may miss a crucial point. This is that the ‘universal’ mishandling of clerical sex abuse in the church is not the failure of particular local bishops (as is claimed in the letter to the Irish), but the expression of a sick ‘company culture’ back at HQ.
“Who created the culture which saw bishops instinctively cover up?”

Besides, the Pope’s deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on a recent visit to Chile, linked child abuse in the Church to homosexuality. Although, he might have meant that the offending priests were homosexual, which opened another can of worms, he should not have tarred all homosexuals with the same brush.

Incidentally, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lom has admitted that he does not talk to the Pope about the abuse issue, but to Cardinal Bertone.

Earlier this week Archbishop Paul Cremona was also passing the buck, “This was not a problem which was restricted to the Church”, he said on a local television programme.
Actually, in this case, yes it is. The problem the Church is facing is not that paedophilia takes place, but that it tried to hide cases from public scrutiny, protect their own and ignored the plight of victims in cases of abuse in which the perpetrators were priests.

In September 2001, Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who at the time headed the Vatican department in charge of priests around the world, told Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux that he was a model for all bishops for his behaviour in the case that shocked France.

"I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration... To encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate domain, this Congregation will send copies of this letter to all bishops' conferences," Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, wrote in his letter to the French bishop.

Barbara Dorris of SNAP, a US-based support group for clerical sex abuse victims, described the letter as "one of the most telling and troubling" among many internal Church documents now being published to expose the extent of the abuse crisis.
"In what other institution on this planet does a top official praise a colleague for hiding a criminal from the police?" she asked in a statement.

The priest, Rev. Rene Bissey, was sentenced to 18 years in jail for sexually abusing 11 boys and Pican got a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting the crimes, reported the Washington Post last week

The Vatican on Thursday said that this had indeed been a major error of judgment by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos. Spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi did not deny the letter's authenticity, only saying it showed it was right to assign handling of all clerical abuse cases with minors to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - now the pope - in 2001.

Hans Küng, the dissident Swiss theologian, does not concur, “We cannot hide the fact that the system of hiding [abuse] was led by the Congregation of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger, in which they kept cases under strict secrecy. Benedict had engineered the Catholic Church’s ‘worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes’,” said Küng, who urged bishops to push for reforms in defiance of the Pope.

Writing in the German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung, this week, the former friend and fellow theologian of Pope Benedict, Küng who is 82, does not believe that the Vatican is capable of the reform required. “The consequences of these scandals for the Catholic Church are devastating. Dear bishops, ask yourselves how we are going to deal with this in the future? Do not be silent – silence makes us complicit. Send demands to Rome for reform.”

He said that bishops should call for a new synod, or council, to discuss reforms. He accused the Pope of not living up “to the great challenges of our time”. His call for reform also appeared in The New York Times, the Italian daily La Republica and other newspapers in France, Spain and Switzerland.

Our own dissident theologian Father Mark Montebello has been effectively silenced as I wrote in this column several weeks ago, Rome would want to avoid a loose cannon like Father Mark disrupting the Pontiff’s imminent Malta visit.

“The Church in Malta had, since 1999, set up a Response Team to hear cases of child abuse, and this had been supplemented by a second team. Both teams were headed by retired judges and were autonomous of the church. Cases were then referred to Rome for action”, Mgr Cremona said on a TV programme.

But the victims, who are insisting they meet the Pope, had approached the local church's Response Team in 2003 but, “unfortunately, we did not get justice then. We sincerely hope that, through this meeting with Mgr Scicluna, we get it now”, said Lawrence Grech, the spokesman for the victims in Malta.

What does that tell you about the response teams, the retired judges heading them and Rome action? Did whoever was interviewing the Archbishop point this out?

Mgr Charles Scicluna, the Vatican's top official responsible for dealing with sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy, is so generously climbing down from his ivory tower and has accepted to meet, in June, the ten victims of alleged sexual and physical child abuse at St Joseph Home, Sta Venera, Malta, seven years later and after their plight attracted international coverage.

It was still not known whether their request for a meeting with the Pope has been granted by yesterday afternoon. Their case has also been dawdling in the Maltese courts since 2003, but they are still waiting for justice to be done.

P.S.

I learned after my column was published that the Pope did meet the ten victims in what was reported as a very emotional meeting.

Read More

Abuse cases dawdling in Malta courts

I cannot believe how people are still so gullible and deferential to the representatives of an institution that have so far not only kept abuse by Catholic priests quiet, but have also transferred the perpetrators to other parishes and other countries.

Mgr Charles Scicluna, the Vatican's top official responsible for dealing with sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy, has been so generous in climbing down from his ivory tower and accepting to meet in June with the ten victims of alleged sexual and physical child abuse at St Joseph Home, Sta Venera, Malta.

"We are very happy that our cries are now being heard by the church authorities, locally and at the Vatican. We are also very grateful that this good news is coming on the eve of Pope Benedict's XVI visit to Malta. All of us welcome the Pope to Malta with open arms and augur that his visit will leave the desired results," Joseph Magro, one of the victims of abuse, was reported as saying.

Come on Mgr Scicluna, you should have met with these people a long time ago and not now because the Pope is coming to visit. These victims have been ignored until now and are only getting attention because of all the media interest in the Pope.

The victims had approached the local church's Response Team in 2003 but, “unfortunately, we did not get justice then. We sincerely hope that, through this meeting with Mgr Scicluna, we get it now”, said Lawrence Grech, the spokesman for the victims.

Their case has been dawdling in the Maltese courts for the past seven years but they are still waiting for justice to be done.

They are also still waiting for a response from the Vatican to their request for a short private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI this weekend.

Read More

A shiny, coloured penis

Isn’t great, what gets us on international news is a penis and of course the Pope’s visit amid all the abuse allegations raining down all over the place. The Malta Times is of course pushing the penis monument and are now underplaying the international media coverage on the Pope.

For, example it picked up the USA Today and BBC stories on that wonderful work of art, but ignored the UK Times online story that leading atheists in Britain are campaigning to have the Pope arrested for “crimes against humanity” when he visits the UK in September.

Geoffrey Robertson, a barrister, and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, are considering whether they could ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action or refer him to the International Criminal Court. They question whether the Holy See is a sovereign state as it claims and whether the Pope has diplomatic immunity.

Now I think that asking for the Pope to be arrested is pushing it too far, but so is the phallic monument farce. One wonders whether the Times has succumbed to Curia and government pressure to lay off negative stories on the Pope. It has also changed its online poll from “Will you be attending any of the Pope’s activities?” Where the majority voted “No” to “Should the Luqa monument be taken down?” following the USA Today poll.

The Luqa council has wanted to get rid of it, ever since it was erected; it is only using the Pope’s visit as extra pressure.

Phallic symbols abound we have obelisk cenotaphs and other more subtle penile erections, but I think that the critics of this particular depiction of the male organ are more upset by its artistic lack of aesthetics rather than prudery.


Now as the old adage goes “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and one can love or hate a work of art. I personally find it an appalling replica of a totem pole and considering this government’s sanctimoniousness and conservatism I find it odd that it sanctioned a multi-coloured, shiny penis in full public view.

Read More

Boohoo poor Lou

Life is so unfair to the Larry King wannabe broadcaster Lou Bondi. He even started wearing the braces once (does he still wear them?) Someone should tell him that it takes more than sporting braces to make an outstanding interviewer.

You would never catch the veteran CNN interviewer calling people “tossers” (those who suffer from chronic masturbation), as Lou did on The Times online.

We really have gone downhill in this country when it comes to journalistic trends. I am of course referring to those whose arrogance, vulgarity and primadonna behaviour rule over the majority.

The worst thing is that the crude and rude language is used by the ones that set themselves up as non plus ultra. These are the people who think of themselves as sophisticated and are always telling others to grow up, while they are still squabbling and name calling in the schoolyard.

This latest tantrum from Mr Bondi was due to the Broadcasting Authority fining PBS €1,164 after finding that the March 8 edition of Bondiplus - billed to be about the government's activity in the two years of this legislature, where the guest was deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg - broke political impartiality rules.

Why just the March 8 edition? Frankly, I have long given up on objective broadcasting here. But Lou found the fine “completely unfair” and claims that he is being discriminated against by the BA.
Well, I suppose when one has been getting away with pushing a partisan agenda on our national station for ages, it is shocking.

And before some of you start thinking that I am a Labour Party hack, forget it. The PL does not like me any more than anyone else I criticise.

The BA said it based its decision on the facts that although the presenter (Lou Bondi) raised some points of criticism, during the interview with Dr Borg, “it was only a feeble attempt to establish some sort of balance and did not balance out the features, which formed a substantial part of the programme”.

The features, which focused on projects, programmes and initiatives launched by the government, “were nothing other than promotion of government activity, with no effort having been made at critical analysis”

The BA also cited the lack of participation by people of different views.

Mind you the billing of the programme as “the government's activity in the two years of this legislature” should have given the game away. If there were going to be any criticism it would have been called “the government’s inactivity blah, blah...”.

“During the programme, of which, 38 per cent was about the problems of the PN backbench, I asked a total of 26 hard hitting questions to Minister Tonio Borg and the features on what the government accomplished during the first two years of office were purely and totally factual”, Lou told The Times.

BA’s beef is not that Lou did not present the government’s accomplishments factually, but that it presented a one-sided view with no serious critical element, which made it partisan in what is meant to be an objective political slot, or as the BA put it: “broke political impartiality rules”.

As for Lou’s claim of “26 hard hitting questions to Minister Tonio Borg”, I referred to the responses on line, because I did not watch the programme.

“We must have all missed the hard-hitting questions. Tonio Borg looked like he was getting a feather-massage,” was Claire Bonello’s witty comment.

“I felt embarrassed for you (Lou) when I saw the edition in question. Sycophantic doesn't even begin to describe your 'performance'”, said another commentator. Well, nothing new there.

“It is about time that some sort of balance and comments are brought to a decent level in order that viewers may be able to stick to the programmes rather than change channel after 5 or 10 minutes due to the biased political opinion of the presenter”, said another.

I have left out the comments, which although fair, were obviously from known PL supporters and the irrelevant ones from PN supporters who defended the programme because worse happened at the public broadcasting station when Labour was in government with Mintoff as PM.

There is no doubt that the country’s broadcasting has been regressing slowly but surely in the last decade, harping on about worse times in the Eighties does not make it any better and is no excuse for falling standards on impartiality and objectivity on our national station.

Mr Bondi thought it was also worth pointing out that the Labour Party did not complain about his programme to the Broadcasting Authority. Now that is very telling about the way he sees his television audience.

According to Mr Bondi’s thinking, criticism of partisan bias should only come from the other side. He neglects to see, as a commentator pointed out, “what counts is the people’s perception. That is what is relevant, irrespective of how many excuses Mr Bondi can come up with.”

Lou’s quotes: “This would not stop here” and online “It is going to be a pleasure for me to take the Broadcasting Authority to court. We will see who will laugh last,” and later, “I am looking forward with serenity and enthusiam (sic) to taking the Broadcasting Authority to court. I repeat, let us see who will laugh last”, do demonstrate a lack of maturity.

As far as I understood it was PBS that has been fined and according to a spokesman for PBS it is the state broadcaster that would be seeking a judicial review of the BA decision and was considering taking the case to the Constitutional Court.

But maybe it should have been the producers of the programme who got fined since PBS is financed through our taxes. We are not only not getting the programmes we deserve, but we also have to pay for that failure.

As a commentator with a sense of humour rightly pointed out “Mr. Bondi is right. The decision is totally unfair. In fact, it is he who should pay the fine, not us taxpayers! Hallina Lou.”

Read More