“Paedophile priests – The wrath of the Pope” screamed the headline in La Repubblica last week, mirroring the general news coverage of Papa Ratzi’s stern words on the topic addressed to visiting Irish Bishops.

A two page spread followed in the paper, informing Italian readers who, perhaps behind the times, may not have heard about the paedophile-priest scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church in many countries.

The heroes of the story, which starts in 2001, somewhat surprisingly, turn out to be the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II. One article, under the title When the Holy See Decided to Say Enough tells us that a historic turn-around came in 2001 when the Pope and a shocked and disgusted Cardinal Ratzinger decided to affront the problem of paedophilia in the Church.

We’re told that Ratzy took the decision to modify the statute of limitations for ecclesiastical trials, a period of ten years, to allow the allotted time period to commence from the age of majority for a victim of child abuse by a cleric. A decision communicated in a letter sent to Bishops worldwide in 2001. What a hero. The good sheperd protecting the smallest of the flock.

Interesting to read, then, The Observer‘s coverage of the self-same letter:

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had ‘obstructed justice’ after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II’s successor last week.

[…]

It orders that ‘preliminary investigations’ into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the ‘functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only[emphasis added].

‘Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,’ Ratzinger’s letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The crucial questions and contextual information that should make up any serious piece on the Church’s reaction to paedophilia are completely absent from the three different articles that make up La Repubblica‘s coverage. The Vatican press office could hardly have scripted more sympathetic coverage, short of suggesting that priestly-paedophilia was a communist-concocted scam.

For example, there is no query as to when Ratzinger or JPII were first informed of cases in countries like Ireland. We know that Irish Bishop Brendan Commiskey knew of cases involving at least one of his priests, Fr. Sean Fortune, as early as 1984. We know that Bishops report directly to Rome regularly. We know that Ratzinger and JPII were both in office at this stage. The transfer of priests accused of child abuse to other parishes in the Church was, we now know, a widespread practice of Bishops – can we believe this widespread practice occured without the knowledge of Rome?

Simon Kennedy, a solicitor working on behalf of victims of clerical abuse, in relation to the Fortune case wrote in The Irish Post (in 2002):

“I obtained evidence that a previous Papal Nuncio, the late Dr Alibrandi, had been informed by local people that Fortune’s intentions to young people were at least suspicious. On receiving no reply, the Nuncio was reminded, and he intimated that the reason for the delay was that he was awaiting a reply from the Holy See with whom he had placed the complaint. Nothing happened.”

In proceedings brought against both Bishop Commiskey and Alibrandi, Alibrandi pleaded diplomatic immunity. Kennedy, on behalf of the victims wrote a number of times, by registered post, to the Pope, but received no acknowledgement. An experience mirrored by other lawyers and investigators working on clerical abuse cases.

There is no mention of the various priests who have been transferred to the Vatican, though they face charges of child abuse in the US. A brief mention is given to the now infamous case of Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, long accused of serial child abuse in Mexico. Ratzinger as Pope, we’re told, forced Maciel to resign, “saving him the humiliation of an ecclesiastical trial”. NO mention is made of the fact that, despite allegations that first surfaced in the 1970s, Maciel was very much in favour with Ratzinger’s predecessor JPII.

In the other main article on the Pope’s encounter with Irish Bishops, the credited journalist, Orazio La Rocca, takes the time and care to quote the Holy See’s minister for health, one Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who commented “It’s necessary to be vigilant, attentive, starting with the formation in seminaries. But it shouldn’t be forgotten that there are also people who accuse the Church just in order to gain economic advantage with accusations and lies”. There is no place in La Rocca’s article, filled as it is with Church sources, for comments from victims of clerical sex abuse (perhaps they’re all too busy prettying themselves up to tempt some poor priest, in order to make their fortune).

For La Rocca’s benefit, we publish the following press release from One in Four, the Irish victims’ group:

One in Four, the national charity which supports people who have experienced sexual violence, acknowledged the comments by Pope Benedict XVI. The Vatican