The reports from Pope Benedict’s meeting with sex-abuse victims in Malta yesterday are quite moving:
[One victim] said he had asked the Pope why the priest had abused him. “I could see the pain in his eyes. He said he did not know. He said the priest had betrayed his vows before God. We still want justice,” Mr Magro added, noting that both legal and Church proceedings against the priests involved in the abuse had been going on for seven years. Lawrence Grech, 37, who acts as spokesman for the eight, said that the meeting had provided “peace in our hearts”.
“I admire the Pope for his courage in meeting us. He was embarrassed by the failings of others. We now look forward to the end of the court case and closure of this chapter,” he said. Both Mr Magro and Mr Grech wore crucifixes and carried rosary beads given to them by the Pope. “After 25 years, now I can go back to church,” Mr Grech said.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
Asked if the Pope had apologised for the abuse, he said: “He did not have to say sorry, because the abuse was not the fault of one person. He should not carry the guilt of others.”
As in the past, Benedict’s meeting with the victims was private, and no journalists were present. John Allen sees this as part of a strategy for dealing with the crisis that is “pastoral, not political“:
By meeting with the victims, Benedict XVI hoped to demonstrate his personal sensitivity to their suffering, as well as offering a recognition that the church is obliged to reach out. As any act by a pope inevitably does, the meeting also sets a tone for other church leaders around the world.
Yet by insisting that these meetings occur only in private and without media coverage, the pope has also demonstrated a determination that they not become public spectacles – in part, perhaps, to avoid impressions of exploiting the victims to score PR points. (Inevitably, some critics will see the meeting in those terms, as they did with previous encounters with victims in the United States and Australia in 2008.) . . .
Ultimately, the gamble implied in this behind-the-scenes strategy is this: Over the long run, will the pope win points for his refusal to follow the spin-saturated crisis management strategies typically employed by politicians, sports stars and corporate CEOs? In other words, will his public reticence seem more like sincerity than denial?
Or, will his pastoral outreach come across as an empty gesture until he offers a substantive response to widespread criticism of the Catholic church’s policies, as well as his own record?
It feels a bit cheap to parse Benedict’s gesture for its every possible political meaning, but you can be sure the secular media is doing it anyway. Allen is right: In some circles, the pope will always be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Benedict couldn’t please everyone even if he tried, so proceeding without regard for the Dawkinses of the world makes sense.
But the Vatican should be careful to distinguish between the ravings of those who simply hate the Church and legitimate requests for greater transparency about the extent of the scandal and the Church’s plan to address it. As Deal pointed out this morning, these stories will continue to leak out in dribs and drabs around the world, unless the Vatican “acts decisively” on the issue.
There’s no reason why these personal meetings with Benedict can’t operate hand-in-hand with a comprehensive response to the problem from the Vatican. I hope they will.
There are no comments yet.