Behind that Editorial

by Editor · January 15, 2003

Our front page editorial headlined “Cover-ups at the top?” (published in the December 25-31 issue) has evoked diverse reactions, as published letters to the editor show.

While we stand by the editorial’s publication and its content, we cannot deny that it has caused a measure of disquiet and misunderstanding among some members of the Church. It is therefore appropriate that we clarify our objectives in writing the editorial comment.

In December, an internationally syndicated report published by the dailies of South Africa’s largest newspaper group, Independent Newspapers, implicated the pope in the cover-up of clergy abuses (at least in the Cape Town morning newspaper Cape Times the story ran on the cover). Many Catholics will have read the report, which was ambiguous and neglected to represent a Catholic response.

Our editorial comment sought to provide some perspective on a widely disseminated news item that surely will have left many Catholics bewildered.

In absence of official comment by the Church, we could not dismiss the report as a fabrication. At the same time, we emphasised that the putative letter was unlikely to have been written or signed by Pope John Paul, and pointed out that the content of the letter was vague. We take the view that this should have persuaded the reader not to attach much significance to the report.

At the same time, an article concerning Fr Marcial Maciel surfaced. In it, men who claim that they were abused by Fr Maciel say that the Vatican blocked an investigation into their allegations, and instead gave the priest a high-profile posting. If true (and the Church is presently in no position to casually dismiss any such allegation), this would suggest that cover-ups may have happened even in the Vatican (“at the top”). The consequences of this would indeed be most momentous, as we observed.

And yet, crucially, our editorial emphasised that “at this point, neither report confirms the Vatican’s liability in the cover-ups of clergy abuse”.

Whether or not the scandal does reach the top, the way in which hierarchy, clergy and laity interact will evolve. The scandal of abuses and their mishandling by members of the episcopate may well prove to have been a watershed in that process (which itself is informed by many other social factors).

To wit, the recent resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston was at least partly attributable to pressure from concerned members of the laity and the archdiocese’s clergy (58 of whom took the unprecedented step of signing a petition calling on the cardinal to abdicate).

It is inaccurate to ascribe an agenda to our observation that “the Church will never be quite the same again, with the laity expecting a greater influence in the way the Church is run”. It is happening already.

Cardinal Napier this week accuses The Southern Cross of constructing “a story that can only weaken or destroy people’s faith”. It is our view that the editorial sought to accomplish the opposite.

It is not The Southern Cross that has created the scandal (and our news coverage of it has scratched only the tip of the iceberg), and it is not The Southern Cross that writes the news for the secular media.

But it is incumbent on The Southern Cross to deal with such matters, without fear or favour. In this, our policy is in line with the guidance given by the Vatican’s own Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

Rather than weakening people’s faith, we believe that our final paragraph was an unequivocal affirmation of our creed:

“What does not change is the salvific nature of the Church, the eternal indwelling of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist and everything else that defines us as Catholics.”