In yesterday’s New York Times, journalist Laurie Goodstein has defended her widely-quoted attack on Vatican obstructionism on sex abuse cases. It is based on an extensive paper trail of documents which resulted in a Milwaukee paedophile priest, Lawrence C. Murphy, dying as a priest instead of defrocked and in disgrace.
In a controversial article on March 24, “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys”, Goodstein sketched the history of Murphy, who is believed to have abused 200 boys at an institution for the deaf between 1950 and 1974 when he was forced out of active ministry. However, the deaf community put more and more pressure upon local Catholic authorities to laicise him. Finally, in 1996, the Vatican office headed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was informed about Murphy’s crimes. The wheels began to turn but Murphy died before a trial took place. Goodstein’s article contends that Ratzinger’s office was too lenient on Murphy and was more concerned with avoiding scandal.
This interpretation was quickly disputed by the Catholic priest handling the case for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Thomas Brundage. He complained in an Alaskan diocesan newspaper about “the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets”. He protested that “with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all [in the Murphy case]. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.”
I confess that I am a bit confused by Fr Brundage’s references to being quoted when I cannot find the newspaper articles on the internet. What is instructive is how Goodstein responded. She wrote:
He [Brundage] also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.
Gotcha! Baffled readers are left with the impression that Fr Brundage is a blustering idiot and that Goodstein’s hostile interpretation is on the button. She sidesteps Brundage’s vigorous defence of the present Pope.
But if Goodstein is in the business of rapping her critics’ knuckles, why didn’t she face up to the vigorous questions posed by priest-journalist Raymond de Souza in Canada’s National Post?
Este es el punto crucial que Michael Cook pone de manifiesto:
He pointed out that Goodstein was blaming the Vatican but failed to inquire why Archbishop Rembert Weakland did nothing for almost 20 years. Surely she has read it.
Furthermore, I have some questions of my own. Goodstein failed to investigate why Murphy had never been charged by police – who knew about the allegations. If there was negligence, weren’t they also guilty?
Furthermore, she failed to point out that Weakland himself had allegedly destroyed records of abusive priests. Furthermore, she failed to underscore that Weakland – an admitted homosexual who had used US$450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay off a disgruntled lover-- must be regarded as an unreliable witness because of his grudge against Ratzinger and Catholic teachings on sexuality.
What we have here is a New York Times journalist highlighting a minor error by a critic and ignoring major errors by herself. It is the triumph of process over substance. It is covering one’s backside. Sound familiar? It’s exactly what the Times accuses Ratzinger of.
Buena requisitoria la de Michael Cook. No sé si podría responder Laurie Goodstein acerca de la posición de Weakland en la fabricación de su propia historia.
Comentarios