BishopAccountability.org
	Cardinal Schonborn and the " Rebuke" - Are the Secular and Catholic Press Biased against Him? By Daniel Klimek MinistryValues July 5, 2010 http://www.ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1020&Itemid=125 There it goes again. The mainstream press—both Catholic and secular—has recently gone on a rampage against one of its favorite targets, asserting that Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the popular archbishop of Vienna, has been "rebuked" or "admonished" by the Vatican, by Pope Benedict XVI himself. Yet, an honest analysis of the released Vatican statement commenting on the meeting between Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schonborn reveals no such reality, simply the opposite: a polite and respectful dialogue between Cardinal Schonborn and the Holy See. On June 28, 2010, the Holy See Press Office released an official statement commenting on Cardinal Schonborn's meeting and audience with Pope Benedict. The statement, in its entirety, reads thus: "(1) The Holy Father today received in audience Cardinal Christoph Schonborn O.P., archbishop of Vienna and president of the Austrian Episcopal Conference. The cardinal had asked to meet the Supreme Pontiff personally in order to report on the current situation of the Church in Austria. In particular, Cardinal Schonborn wished to clarify the exact meaning of his recent declarations concerning some aspects of current ecclesiastical discipline, and certain of his judgements regarding positions adopted by the Secretariat of State - and in particular by the then Secretary of State of Pope John Paul II - concerning the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, archbishop of Vienna from 1986 to 1995. "(2) Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, and Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. were subsequently invited to join the meeting. "In the second part of the audience certain widespread misunderstandings were clarified and resolved, misunderstandings deriving partly from certain statements of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who expressed his displeasure at the interpretations given to his words. "In particular: "(a) It must be reiterated that, in the Church, when accusations are made against a cardinal, competency falls exclusively to the Pope; other parties may have a consultative function, while always maintaining due respect for persons. "(b) The word 'chiacchiericcio' (gossip) was erroneously interpreted as disrespectful to the victims of sexual abuse, towards whom Cardinal Angelo Sodano nourishes the same feelings of compassion, and of condemnation of evil, as expressed on various occasions by the Holy Father. That word, pronounced during his Easter address to Pope Benedict XVI, was taken literally from the pontifical homily of Palm Sunday and referred to the "courage that does not let itself be intimidated by the gossip of prevalent opinions". "(3) The Holy Father, recalling with great affection his own pastoral trip to Austria, via Cardinal Christoph Schonborn sends his greetings and encouragement to the Church in Austria, and to her pastors, entrusting the journey to renewed ecclesial communion to the celestial protection of the Blessed Virgin, so venerated at Mariazell". OP/ VIS 20100628 (370) From the contents of this statement, the AP had the audacity to run a story titled, "Vatican admonishes Austrian cardinal for comments." Reuters, similarly, went with a story which headlined: "Pope rebukes Austrian cardinal who accused peer." CatholicCulture.org, a site which has had a history of distorting stories about Cardinal Schonborn, has written: "Vatican rebukes Cardinal Schonborn for criticism of ex-Secretary of State." Yet, judging by the above mentioned Vatican statement, which was written with immense politeness and seemingly goodwill, where did this great "admonishment" come from (as the AP asserts)? Where is this great "rebuke" present herein (as Reuters asserts)? Where do we see the "rebukes" of the Vatican (as CatholicCulture.org similarly claims) against Cardinal Schonborn? Honestly, in this statement Cardinal Schonborn was rebuked? - where Pope Benedict "recalling with great affection his own pastoral trip to Austria, via Cardinal Christoph Schonborn sends his greetings and encouragement to the Church in Austria, and to her pastors, entrusting the journey to renewed ecclesial communion to the celestial protection of the Blessed Virgin, so venerated at Mariazell." In all fairness, let us consider the arguments of some of these media outlets without prematurely dismissing their claims. Their voices deserve to be heard. CatholicCulture.org has argued: "The Vatican statement emphasized that the Pope alone should be the judge of accusations against a cardinal. The emphasis on that statement was an unmistakable reprimand to Cardinal Schonborn for his public criticism of another cardinal." Is that really what the Vatican statement was? – an "unmistakable reprimand" to Cardinal Schonborn? The passage which CatholicCulture is alluding to, as already referenced above in part (a.) of the Vatican statement, reads: "It must be reiterated that, in the Church, when accusations are made against a cardinal, competency falls exclusively to the Pope; other parties may have a consultative function, while always maintaining due respect for persons." However, this portion of the Vatican statement does not say that Cardinal Schonborn was wrong with his opinion – which is what a true "unmistakable reprimand" or "rebuke" would consist of – but simply that the Pope has the final judgment in such matters, while admitting that "other parties" (which, presumably, includes cardinals like Schonborn and Sodano) do have a consultative function in such cases, as well. This is very respectful and diplomatic language. It is not aggressive and reprimanding in the sense that it refuses to admit an error in judgment on the part of the cardinal. There's a couple of reasons as to why the Vatican statement refuses to admit error on Cardinal Schonborn's part, in essence refusing to rebuke him. First, Cardinal Schonborn was defending Pope Benedict—who has been aggressively, and unjustly, attacked by various news outlets as being soft on pedophilia accusations within the Church—when he accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano of blocking investigations into pedophila charges against Hans Hermann Groer, the former (disgraced) Austrian archbishop. Cardinal Schonborn explained that before becoming Pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did want to investigate those (and similar) charges of sexual misconduct with strong conviction. Second, no one has—including the Pope or the Holy See—asserted that Cardinal Schonborn was wrong with this claim since, very likely, he wasn't. Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope, was very aggressive and assertive in fighting sexual abuse within the Church, particularly as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under John Paul II's papacy for 27 years. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger was a realist, using very strong (and appropriate) language in acknowledging "the filth" that has infiltrated the Church when referring to the pedophilia scandals. This is why he took an aggressive approach to investigating former Austrian Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer and, conversely, this is why Cardinal Sodano's dissuasion against pursuing that investigation further seems rationally inexplicable. Cardinal Sodano regrettably has a history of halting such important investigations. In 1998, for example, he intervened to halt an investigation of Marcial Maciel of sexual abuse charges. Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, has been revealed—by a future Vatican report—of being a serial pedophile and the father of at least one illegitimate child while a priest. Incidentally, the investigation that Sodano halted in 1998 was led by Cardinal Ratzinger who, as head of the CDF, attempted to establish a tribunal to hold Maciel accountable for his crimes. Conveniently, Sodano was the recipient of financial gifts on behalf of Maciel. An ex-Legion member once told the National Catholic Reporter, "Cardinal Sodano was the cheerleader for the Legion. He'd come give a talk at Christmas and they'd give him $10,000. Another priest recalled a $5,000 donation to Sodano." Such matters Cardinal Ratzinger strongly opposed. Given all these facts, it seems astonishing that CatholicCulture.org and likeminded media outlets can call the Vatican statement an "unmistakable reprimand" against Cardinal Schonborn—whose seen eye-to-eye with Pope Benedict on these matters—by the Holy See. The Vatican statement refused to claim that the content of Cardinal Schonborn's views were wrong when pointing blame on Sodano's actions in halting sexual misconduct investigations. If there's anything from the Vatican statement that may come remotely close to challenging Schonborn it is part (b), which states that the word "chiacchiericcio" (gossip) was erroneously interpreted as disrespectful when used by Sodano in reference to sexual abuse victims. However, beyond this, the Vatican statement does not challenge Cardinal Schonborn's criticisms of Sodano's actions in trying to halt ecclesial investigations into clerical abuse cases. Yet, this did not stop the media from exploiting and distorting the statement to that point. Reuters did exactly the same thing, running a story whose lead (misleadingly) explained: "The Vatican issued an unusual statement in which it effectively said the pope had censured Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, who last month publicly accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano of having covered up sexual abuse." Like CatholicCulture.org, the Reuters story jumps to this audacious conclusion (of censorship) on the basis of the line from the Vatican statement that "competency falls exclusively to the Pope" in judging cardinals. Of course, the Reuters story completely ignores the second part of the paragraph from the Vatican statement – that "other parties may have a consultative function, while always maintaining due respect for persons" in judging cardinals – and, of course, the Reuters story ignores the fact that the Vatican statement did not claim to disagree with the content of Cardinal Schonborn's opinions. Such a hostile (and, unfortunately, popular) slant on this story is noticeable in widespread media outlets who reported on Cardinal Schonborn's meeting. For example, the Associated Press published a story wherein it asserted: "The Vatican on Monday admonished a leading cardinal [Schonborn] for having publicly criticized the former Vatican No. 2 [Sodano] for his handling of clerical abuse cases. In a remarkable statement, the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal, not another so-called prince of the church." What is truly remarkable is not the Vatican's statement—which, as observed, contained nothing but polite and diplomatic language—but the AP's distortion of that statement. To begin with, like CatholicCulture, the AP story completely ignores the fact that the Vatican statement did not disagree with the Cardinal's judgments (on Sodano and clerical abuse). The Vatican statement simply pointed out that the Pope has the final word on those judgments—a fact which Cardinal Schonborn never disagreed with in the first place, being a respectful defender of Pope Benedict from day one. Second, the Vatican statement could not—and did not—admit that Cardinal Schonborn was wrong in his opinions—a fact that the AP story neglects to mention. Third, the Vatican statement never used such sardonically condescending language like calling Cardinal Schonborn "another so-called prince of the church," as the AP story implies with its own usage of these words and the disrespectful undercurrents associated to the terminology by the AP's usage. Unfortunately, for those countless of readers across the world who never read the original Vatican statement, but simply received their news on the subject from the AP and likeminded publications, it probably appeared that the Holy See slandered the Austrian Cardinal profusely. Not only does such a misconception undermine the reality of what transpired between Cardinal Schonborn and the Vatican, thus distorting modern events, but it also shows what a sad state of journalistic integrity (or, more aptly, the lack thereof) has developed among outlets with an ideologically-motivated slant on Church affairs. The AP story speaks to a larger crisis, an unavoidable ideological trend within religious journalism that hopes to portray Catholic affairs in a narrow, black-and-white dichotomy, ignoring reality. The story itself does not portray Cardinal Schonborn fully in a dark light, but attempts to show that the Vatican portrays Cardinal Schonborn in a dark light, and this distinction speaks abundantly to a greater point. For example, in terms of the AP's own views on Schonborn, the story states: "Schoenborn, a former student of the pope's and a papal confidante, has been a leading figure in the abuse crisis, forcefully denouncing abuse, presiding over service of reparations for victims and openly calling for an honest examination of issues like celibacy." Here, in correctly emphasizing how Cardinal Schonborn has been a leading figure in denouncing clerical sexual abuse, we may see why the AP (and likeminded outlets) choose to portray and misrepresent the Holy See as opposing (and specifically admonishing) Cardinal Schonborn: this plays into the old storyline popularized by such publications like The New York Times, positioning the "backward" Vatican hierarchy against the righteous reformers of the Church (like Schonborn). Unfortunately, such a banal and tasteless characterization hopes to promulgate a storyline that has lost all sense of reality, ignoring the respectful dialogue which took place between the Vatican and Cardinal Schonborn. Regrettably, some of these publications who have misrepresented Cardinal Schonborn's meeting with the Pope have a history of misrepresentation when dealing with these reoccurring topics. For example, CatholicCulture has a history of interpreting statements surrounding Cardinal Schonborn very creatively and very negatively (to put it politely). This history displays a clear, systematic bias against the Austrian Cardinal and his spiritual pursuits. For instance, just a few months ago, after Cardinal Schonborn returned from a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, he and the local bishop – Ratko Peric – exchanged a couple of letters. Bishop Peric, being someone whose held strong hostility and antagonism toward the reported apparitions in Medjugorje, disapproved of the Cardinal's visit to the popular shrine. As a reply, Cardinal Schonborn wrote the bishop a letter in which he stated: "Your Excellency, Dear Brother in Christ. I have received your letter from January 2 of this year. I regret if you have the impression that my pilgrimage to Medjugorje did a disservice to peace. You can be sure that this was not my intention." Stephen Ryan covered this story for MinistryValues.com (see, "Schonborn's letter no 'Apology' – Catholic Press Distorts Medjugorje letter to Bishop Peric"). Ryan noticed that most Catholic media outlets decidedly distorted the content of this letter, portraying Cardinal Schonborn as offering an apology to Bishop Peric when, clearly, that was far from the case. The words "I regret if you have the impression…" constituted no such thing as an apology for traveling to Medjugorje but, conversely, conveyed disappointment in Bishop Peric's negative reaction toward the Cardinal's pilgrimage. Ryan further noted that the "Catholic Culture website said 'the timing of the apology, soon after a private audience with the pontiff, lends weight to a report by an Italian Catholic web site that Benedict was also unhappy about the publicity generated by the cardinal's Medjugorje visit.' This report by Catholic Culture is pure speculation and transparently biased against Medjugorje." Here we see an example wherein not only was Cardinal Schonborn's letter disingenuously distorted as an "apology" but so was his subsequent meeting with Pope Benedict. CatholicCulture's insinuation that Benedict would be upset with Schonborn's visit to Medjugorje holds numerous weaknesses. First, it betrays the positive history that Benedict has had in supporting Medjugorje. For example, as Prefect of the CDF in April 1986 he summoned Bishop Pavao Zanic – who wanted to pass a negative judgment on Medjugorje – into his office, ordering Zanic to withhold his judgment, dissolve his commission, and place the matter into the more competent hands of the Holy See. This respect for Medjugorje by Benedict was further displayed earlier this year, when the Pope took the official judgment away from the antagonistic hands of Bishop Peric and assigned an international commission under the guidance of the CDF to examine the phenomenon of Medjugorje objectively, headed by Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Second, the notion that Pope Benedict scheduled a spontaneous meeting with Cardinal Schonborn as a result of the latter's pilgrimage to Medjugorje is something that defeats the common sense of logistical consideration. Stephen Ryan explained: "The reality is that the Cardinal's meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome was scheduled months in advance of Cardinal Schonborns' trip. Most folks who work in Catholic news journalism understand meetings with the Pope are planned way advance. Unfortunately, however, when it suits a certain point of view, even when they know better, some reporters stir up unsubstantiated rumors about 'secret' meetings and things that go bump in the night at the Vatican." Likewise, as has been observed, many misconceptions, distortions, and misunderstandings have been conveyed about Pope Benedict's recent meeting with Cardinal Schonborn, of June 28, 2010. The fact that a respectful dialogue transpired between them is not only validated in the content of the released Vatican statement but also in the title that Vatican Radio, the voice of the Pope, gave to the official statement: "Cardinal Schonborn Meets with Pope to Clarify Declarations." Again, the official language from the Holy See does not use incendiary terminology like countless of media outlets reporting on the case did. There is no talk from Vatican Radio of "chastisement" (like the Catholic Herald U.K. reported) or "admonishment" (like CatholicCulture reported) or "rebuke" (like Reuters reported) or any reference to that "so-called prince of Rome" (like the AP reported) but respectful and polite acknowledgment that a meeting with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schonborn took place.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.