An article against the PA Grand Jury Report

[Jack4]

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pa-grand-jury-report-not-what-it-seems

The article is rather long. The author argues that the report gives rise to exaggerated notions.

Quote

 

The prevalent story about Catholic clergy sex abuse as deeply entrenched, largely unabated, and uniquely Catholic is now so embedded in the media as to make it resistant to evidence to the contrary, which, at least for the United States, is ample and well-documented.

In the case of Pennsylvania, whether one looks at the handling of old allegations or the prevention of new ones, the conclusion that a careful, unbiased reading of the Pennsylvania report compels is this: the Dallas Charter has worked. Not worked perfectly, not without need for regular improvements and constant watchfulness.

 

 

I'm posting it for discussion.

I'm not denying that abuse and cover-up took place, nor is the author.

[Guest]

I have only read a third of the way through the article authored by an impressive journalist it seems.  It does underscore to date in my reading what I have long known and that is that media can form our understanding and even manipulate it to their own ends.  In other words, having an agenda in the type of reporting done.  It has long been known that sensationalism seems to be what the public wants; therefore, sensationalist reporting will sell.

In today's climate re the abuse and the cover ups, if one is not reacting as others think that they should, nor focusing where others think that they should focus, then all kinds of accusations can be levelled. There is a demand to behave in 'socially acceptable' ways and what is 'socially acceptable' has been fashioned by media with an agenda; alternatively, fashioned by others equally with an agenda.

 

It is not that one does not take the abuse and the cover ups with horror and revulsion, anger.  It is that one is not expressing those emotions in ways that others want them to express........in accord with the agenda of the other.  

It is an attempt to manipulate others.

[Jack4]

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

There is a demand to behave in 'socially acceptable' ways and what is 'socially acceptable' has been fashioned by media with an agenda; alternatively, fashioned by others equally with an agenda.

Something like the "popularity" in high school, right? 

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

the article authored by an impressive journalist it seems

On one hand, I have moderate traditionalist sympathies so commonweal is a bit too - er - modern for my taste. On the other hand, the article is incisive - the author did something that many journalists and pundit-commentators did not - actually read the grand jury report. He read and analyzed the data and examined how much the conclusions flow from the data. 

2 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It is not that one does not take the abuse and the cover ups with horror and revulsion, anger.  It is that one is not expressing those emotions in ways that others want them to express........in accord with the agenda of the other.  

It is an attempt to manipulate others.

A problem from beginning with the wrong diagnosis is that the treatment (policies and procedures) will be framed based on the diagnosis. If the diagnosis is wrong, the condition will not be treated properly. Only by understanding what problems exist now will we be able to solve these. 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I have the formatting all wrong - apologies.  My comments (BarbaraTherese) are in bold.

 

Something like the "popularity" in high school, right? 

 

"Something like"...........  RIGHT! SPOT ON!  It is foreign to human nature to swim against a tide, when one is the only one swimming against it.  "Foreign to" but not impossible to human nature.  (Sort of a "bystander effect" in reverse as it were).

 

On one hand, I have moderate traditionalist sympathies so commonweal is a bit too - er - modern for my taste. On the other hand, the article is incisive - the author did something that many journalists and pundit-commentators did not - actually read the grand jury report. He read and analyzed the data and examined how much the conclusions flow from the data. 

 

I don't know whether I would fall into the compartment of "moderate traditionalist", "traditionalist" or whatever other compartment bears a title.

I noted in what I have read of the article that the author "As the senior religion reporter at the Times from 1988 to 1997, I wrote that story in June 1993, almost a decade before the Boston Globe revelations" and I took it that writing for the Times was impressive.  I also noted that he had read the whole report and commented that journalists who do not read the sometimes hundreds of pages of a report will 'borrow' comments from other journalists' reports.

We have a TV program here in Australia "Media Report" and regularly "false news" gets around and becomes 'fact' to the majority because of journalists picking up comments from other journalists and taking their comments as gospel, when they are in fact inaccurate and (usually inadvertently) false.  As I said this occurs regularly.  There are reasons for it, but not excuses.

The 'headline' on a recent video posted in a thread stated "Corrupt from top to bottom".  That is a gross inaccuracy putting it mildly. 

"Corruption at the top and at the bottom" would be more accurate.  

 

A problem from beginning with the wrong diagnosis is that the treatment (policies and procedures) will be framed based on the diagnosis. If the diagnosis is wrong, the condition will not be treated properly. Only by understanding what problems exist now will we be able to solve these. 

 

Spot on again in my book.  If policies and procedures are framed on the diagnosis especially if the diagnosis is inaccurate, then the condition "will not be treated properly".  What needs to happen is in understanding "what problems exist now", the most important question is "Why did it happen?" and treat that.

I don't get around to reading everything for sure, but it seems to me that where cover ups have occured, clericalism would be one reason why.   That is if I am understanding the compartment of "clericalism" accurately.   And I think that Pope Francis is attempting to address it.

 

 

 

Where "clericalism" is concerned it is a problem at times at the top, but also at the very bottom as it were - because we out here in the pews put our hierarchy on a pedestal, both the position and the person filling the position.

I think that we are expected by the top and the bottom to put the position AND the person filling the position on a pedestal, because rather often any criticism of the person filling the position is immediately taken as disrespect for the position.  In reality it is probably the ultimate in respect for the position.

 

Sorry for the lousy formatting.  My alarm keeps going off distracting me.  It is trying to tell me that it is time to change occupation. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I don't know whether I would fall into the compartment of "moderate traditionalist", "traditionalist" or whatever other compartment bears a title.

I noted in what I have read of the article that the author "As the senior religion reporter at the Times from 1988 to 1997, I wrote that story in June 1993, almost a decade before the Boston Globe revelations" and I took it that writing for the Times was impressive.  I also noted that he had read the whole report and commented that journalists who do not read the sometimes hundreds of pages of a report will 'borrow' comments from other journalists' reports.

I'm not against the spirit of the article  - I posted it after all - but that Commonweal as a whole is not sound. 

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

We have a TV program here in Australia "Media Report" and regularly "false news" gets around and becomes 'fact' to the majority because of journalists picking up comments from other journalists and taking their comments as gospel, when they are in fact inaccurate and (usually inadvertently) false.  As I said this occurs regularly.  There are reasons for it, but not excuses.

The 'headline' on a recent video posted in a thread stated "Corrupt from top to bottom".  That is a gross inaccuracy putting it mildly. 

"Corruption at the top and at the bottom" would be more accurate.  

Here, a news site reported about a Bishop - I kid you not, I'm trying my best to use the same words they did - "His eyes do not have the sparkle of spirituality, instead, greed is visible from his facial expression" 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I'm not against the spirit of the article  - I posted it after all - but that Commonweal as a whole is not sound.  Thank you for this information re Commonweal  

Here, a news site reported about a Bishop - I kid you not, I'm trying my best to use the same words they did - "His eyes do not have the sparkle of spirituality, instead, greed is visible from his facial expression" 

19 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I'm not against the spirit of the article

I did note the above.  Great to know that suspect media outlets are not always bad through and through  ..........a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Sorry for the lousy formatting.  My alarm keeps going off distracting me.  It is trying to tell me that it is time to change occupation. 

Off topic...........the above reminds me of why I found monastic life extremely difficult.  Those jolly bells!