BishopAccountability.org
	Benedict's Evasive Apology By Susan Jacoby On Faith April 14, 2009 http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/04/ the_art_of_the_evasive_apology_words_without_actions.html When the Pope apologizes for anything, his statement generally signifies nothing more than an attempt at damage control in the wake of an unanticipated public relations disaster created by his and his church's actions. In all fairness, it must be said that this generalization also applies to nearly every apology made by secular politicians. This should not be surprising, because all popes are politicians. They wouldn't have gotten to be popes otherwise. Pope Benedict's belated, ambiguous response to the storm of public criticism over his reversal of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop in January is a classic example of an apology unaccompanied by any real action to remedy the situation. Richard Williamson, who has repeatedly said there were no gas chambers and that only 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis (and not as part of any organized plan) was told by the pope that he needed to revise his views or he couldn't serve as a bishop again. (Pope Benedict's reversal of the excommunication issued by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II--not, by the way, because of Holocaust denial but because of Williamson's opposition to liturgical reforms--was unchanged.) Williamson said he had to consult with more experts to examine his views. One of the "experts" was David Irving, a British historian who is also a renowned Holocaust denier. No matter. The latest on Williamson is that he and his ultra-conservative Catholic liturgical sect, called the Society of St. Pius X, are trying to buy their own church in England. According to the East Manchester Advertiser, "It is understood that the Bishop of Manchester, chairman of the (U.K.) national council of Christians and Jews, has grave reservations about the move." I'll bet. When a Holocaust denier is moving into your liturgical neighborhood, it must be difficult to preside over well-meaning ecumenical efforts involving Christians and Jews. Pope Benedict hasn't weighed in on the matter. His apology--which I wouldn't call an apology because it was really just an admission that he had misjudged the strength of feeling on this matter in Europe--is worthless. This pope's apologies (or expressions of regret) for the harm done to victims by pedophile priests are equally worthless, because he has done nothing to punish the bishops and cardinals, throughout the United States, who were fully aware of the accusations against these priests for decades and did everything possible to cover up the crimes by shifting the priests from parish to parish. That goes for the previous pope, John Paul II, as well. Boston's former cardinal, Bernard Law, one of the worst offenders, was given a position in the influential curia of Vatican cardinals, took a prominent role in funeral services for John Paul, and is head of the storied basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. Some punishment. Why should anyone have paid attention to Benedict's crocodile tears (or, rather, misty eyes) over victims when he visited the United States? I don't place much value on apologies for distant historical events about which the apologizer can do nothing. But the Catholic Church could, in fact, still do something about the evil heritage left by pedophile clergy. The church has the power to punish every high official who knew and looked the other way, but it has chosen not to do so. In similar fashion--instead of shilly-shallying and demanding that the Holocaust-denying Williamson reexamine his views--Benedict could simply revoke any church sanction for his acting, in any capacity, as a priest. I cannot imagine why anyone would care one way or the other about what the Vatican does, and does not, consider worthy of an apology. Consider the Vatican's defense of a decision by a Brazilian archbishop to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after she was raped by her stepfather. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic Church's Congregation for Bishops, declared that "life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified." The rapist-stepfather was not excommunicated because, the Brazilian bishop had said, abortion is a far more serious crime than the rape of a child. So what if the nine-year-old, who was carrying twins, could, as the doctors feared, have died in childbirth? Why should anyone attribute any moral authority to a church, and its leaders, that upholds such inhumane doctrines? Their apologies and their moral rationalizations merit neither attention nor praise. And, gentle readers, please refrain from criticizing me for criticizing the Catholic Church, and not some other church, in this instance. The question was about Pope Benedict and his apologies, not about a grand rabbi, an ayatollah, or the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Yes, I know that representatives of other faiths, like other politicians, have also issued meaningless apologies. And when a rabbi or an ayatollah issues some smarmy non-apologetic apology in the future, I'll be happy to criticize him. Religious "authorities" ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for church leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist. No apology could ever wipe away their guilt. But they won't apologize, because they feel no guilt. And no shame.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.