On the BBC documentary “Sex Crimes and the Vatican,” which first aired on the 29th of September 2006, he claimed, while holding a copy of what appears to be Crimen sollicitationis, that “[b]ut what you really have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.”  So here he is clear that it is “an explicit written policy to cover up cases of sexual abuse by the clergy.”

On the 13th October 2006 he is quoted by NCR as saying: “Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse.“  So here he is equally clear.  Doyle does not believe ”nor has (he) ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy… …to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse.”

This apparent contradiction is explained by Doyle as being the result of the producers failing to convey to the audience the “distinctions” he made in relation to the document.  But what “distinctions” could have preceded or followed the statement “[b]ut what you really have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy” that would change its meaning so greatly that it would come to mean the complete opposite?  I can’t think of any plausible combination of words, other than perhaps a statement that the claim he just made was false and they shouldn’t air it.

Let’s assume that he was somehow misrepresented.  What has he done to correct the record?  Has he told the BBC to clarify the matter?  Because the website for the documentary is still up, six years later, showing and quoting him making that incorrect claim, a claim he himself acknowledges is incorrect, and it’s still being cited by people as evidence that Crimen sollicitationis was an explicit written policy designed to cover up evidence of sexual abuse by clergy, and by implication, that the Pope was involved in a cover up.

It is one thing to be misrepresented, it’s another thing entirely to fail to attempt to undo the consequences caused by a misrepresentation.  And when that misrepresentation helps serve a persons ideological aims, it makes me less likely to rely upon their claims again in the future.

But then: Since God is therefore the pastor’s boss, and the Pope “if not the next best thing is pretty close to God”, then the Pope is the pastor’s boss and – in ‘JR’s careful and considered logical analysis, therefore there is “a chain of command in the Catholic Church” that goes from the pastor to the Pope (and then on to God, although that bit is left out … perhaps since God can’t be brought to court or sued).

Such logic: the spiritual primacy of the relationship with God – which the pastor enjoys as a baptized Catholic anyway – is equated with some organizational command structure by which the Pope gets orders from God and the pastor gets orders from the Pope.

Why would anybody even go to the trouble of fabricating such a Cartoon? One answer offers itself: you need some sort of ‘chain of command’ in order to have grounds for lawsuits or – as is evolving (mutating might be a better word here) now – criminal trials of Church officials even though they never committed any sexual-abuse themselves.

This requires that the Church be imagined as a military organization: the Pope as Field Marshal, the Pastor as a base or camp commander; the individual priests as enlisted … have it your way, whatever it may be.

But this is – again – a Cartoon. Surely the long history of the papacy’s relations with its own subordinates indicates no such thing. If, for a recent example, the Church were a military organization, then why was there so much complexity and dissent engendered by Vatican 2 which – if you take a look at, say, the NCR site, exists to this very day?

But a far more comprehensive analysis of the nature of authority in the Church is provided by the canonist Dr. Edward Peters, linked-to in this article.

As I said in a comment on the ‘Mea Maxima Culpa’ article, Peters gives us all a clear example of just what it takes to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the subject: you require some very serious thinking, and a wide knowledge of Church history: theological, canonical, philosophical, organizational, cultural, sociological. Without that knowledge, you will inevitably wind up with a grossly inadequate and inaccurate ‘map’ and ‘picture’ of what you are trying to deal with.

Of course, if you are looking for a handy, Hollywood-ready, media-friendly Cartoon with a quickie and simplistic Script – then Peters is exactly the kind of person you do not want getting in the way. Watch to see how much coverage his analysis gets in the mainstream media. And in a way it’s understandable because very few people like doing the hard work of serious analysis and thinking unless they really have to – and apparently in the media – far too often, alas – it’s not considered necessary to do too much thinking in the matter of the Catholic abuse Thing.

And of course, to either the genuinely Cartoon-oriented personality, or to the manipulative mind looking to hoodwink (and Stampede) public opinion, then people like Peters are Public Enemy No. 1 (well, No. 2, since actually the Cartoon-Script requires the Pope to get top-billing).

But I would like to congratulate TMR for giving us this direct access to Peters’s work, and I earnestly submit to the readership that a quiet reading of his material gives you a picture of how a serious and trained mind works when it has to conduct an analysis.

In the process, Peters uncovers vital and ‘fatal’ (in the legal sense) deficiencies in the ‘expert’ submissions submitted (under oath) to the Court by one Mr. Wall, and supported by Richard Sipe (and no doubt many others similarly inclined toward the Useful Cartoon).

I read Peters last night and I am going to read him again. I won’t rehearse all his material here – but he is a very bright ray of light in a triple sense: i) he offers an opportunity for as many who wish to see how trained and serious minds approach the work of analysis, and ii) he specifically informs many – even and especially Catholics – about the genuine workings and teachings of the Church, and iii) how awesomely complex it is to make even the ‘simplest’ accurate and justifiable conclusions, if you want to do it right.

Thank you TMR, and prayers for your work, Dr. Peters.