A response to Perry, and Schoenborn

In his recent re-posting of the Reuters report on Cardinal Schoenborn, Michael highlighted the following text:

Schoenborn has been one of the most open prelates toward victims' abuse groups and has dismissed tendencies in the Church to sidestep criticism by blaming anti-catholic media bias and pointing to abuse in secular context.

I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this language was highlighted in response to posts of mine, in which I have expressed my view (or endorsed the expressed views of others) that anti-Catholicism is shaping the reporting by some news outlets on the scandal.  Reuters does not provide any quotations or citations to instances in which Cardinal Schoenborn has "dismissed tendencies to sidestep criticism by blaming anti-catholic media bias," so I do not know exactly what it was that the Cardinal said.  Certainly, the architect of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is entirely correct in insisting that the Church must confess, confront, do penance for, and guard against her members', ministers', and leaders' sins.

In any event, and to be clear:  I have never suggested, and do not believe, that the Church may or should avoid "criticism by blaming anti-catholic media bias" for the wrongs that have been done by abusive priests and negligent (or, in a few cases, worse) bishops.  I could be wrong, of course, but I am not aware of anyone who ever has, "blam[ed]" anti-catholic media bias for these wrongs (and so I am curious what, exactly, the Reuters story is referring to), though some have certainly complained that this bias has resulted in exaggerated coverage of those wrongs.  Nor have I ever suggested that "anti-catholic media bias" should be used as an excuse for not confronting these wrongs. 

That said, I am confident that Cardinal Schoenborn would not deny that, in fact, anti-Catholicism in the media is a reality (including at Reuters) and that it has shaped the reporting on the scandal, and also the "construction", in the public's mind, of the scandal.  Michael, I am curious, do you deny that it has? 

The point, though, in acknowledging this reality is not to "blam[e]" anti-catholic bias for the scandal.  It is, however, to urge everyone to be aware of the reality of this bias and of the aims of some of the Church's critics, and to be sure that this bias does not mis-shape the (as the Cardinal says) entirely appropriate and necessary criticism of and responses to the wrongs.

I note, by the way, some other statements that Cardinal Schoenborn made recently:

Schoenborn, a close Benedict confidante, defended the pope against suggestions that he was behind church cover-ups, including for the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer. . . .

Schenborn said Ratzinger had immediately pushed for an investigative commission when abuse allegations against Groer arose. However, others in the Vatican — described by Schoenborn as the "diplomatic track" — did not let this happen.

"I can still very clearly remember the moment when Cardinal Ratzinger sadly told me that the other camp had asserted itself," Schoenborn told ORF.

"To accuse him of being someone who covers things up, having known the pope for many years, I can say that is certainly not true," he added.