No Comment, Six Questions — February 4, 2013, 9:00 am

Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God

Alex Gibney on his documentary investigating the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of child sex-abuse cases

Alex Gibney

Documentary producer Alex Gibney, who won an Oscar for his 2007 film Taxi to the Dark Side, will premiere an explosive new film on Monday, February 4, at 9 p.m. on HBO. Titled Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God, it studies the child-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican’s institutional failure to address it. I put six questions to Gibney about his new film:

1. Your film centers on the tale of a group of young men who silently endured abuse while they were students at a church school for the deaf in Wisconsin. Later in life, they decided to challenge the authority of a church that sheltered their tormenter. What led you to their story?

I read and was moved by Laurie Goodstein’s account in the New York Times. I was drawn to do a movie about it for three reasons. First, the story itself — about a Milwaukee priest named Lawrence Murphy who abused 200 deaf children — was particularly appalling. It also happened to be the patient-zero case of modern clerical sexual abuse: so far as we have been able to determine, the leafletting of the Milwaukee Cathedral by three young deaf men in 1974 is the first public protest over clerical sex abuse in the United States.

Second, many stories had been done about particular cases of abuse, but this story is one in which the cover-up within the Vatican can be documented. The Vatican’s policies on abuse are at the core of my film, and this story makes that clear. For years, the Vatican maintained that, when it came to clerical sex abuse, the bishops were on their own to adjudicate the cases. The correspondence in the Milwaukee story puts the lie to that. When Archbishop Rembert Weakland moved to start a canonical trial, he had to appeal to Rome. Then, in the midst of the process, the Vatican decided to abate the trial out of concern for Father Murphy. So it was the Vatican, rather than the bishops, making the key decisions.

Father Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer who appears in the film, notes that there was a Vatican document governing sexual crimes that involved the confessional. The Crimen Sollicitaticionis demands total secrecy of all involved — including victims — in the investigation and trial of such crimes. While Doyle says that the Crimen was not proof of an explicit conspiracy to keep these matters secret, it was a reflection of an institutional culture that valued secrecy above all else and had the effect of a vast cover-up. 

Third, I was fascinated by the tenacity of the deaf men in their pursuit of justice. Despite the fact that they are deaf, they managed to have their voices “heard.” They are everyday heroes — a bright light in a very dark story.

2. You work hard to isolate the source of the blockade within the church. Between the diocesan officials and the Vatican, where can the blame best be laid?

There is enough blame to go around. Many bishops were at fault. But it became clear to me that the bishops were following the dictates of Rome, which sought to avoid scandal and elude judgments by civil society. A callous disregard for victims permeated the culture of the hierarchy. In the film, one archbishop — Desmond Connell, the former Archbishop of Dublin — is asked why he didn’t notify parents in his archdiocese about the dangers posed by known pedophile priests. His response: “Oh I suppose I should have, but I had so much to do.” Staggering. What was keeping him too busy to protect children? Trimming the cathedral’s Christmas tree?

As for Rome, starting in 2001, all cases of clerical sex abuse in the church were forwarded to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So he may be the most knowledgeable man in the world about clerical sex abuse. Yet even though he saw the parade of horrors of child abuse, did Ratzinger as cardinal, or later as Pope Benedict, mandate reporting to civil authorities? No. When he had a chance, as Pope, to defrock Marcial Maciel, one of the world’s most brutally abusive clerics, did he do it? No. He and the curia around him are unwilling to confront the issue in a serious way. In that sense, it’s a systematic global cover-up of crimes. 

3. One of the more puzzling portraits you offer us is of Archbishop Weakland, a church prelate who has openly acknowledged his homosexuality. Did the church treat him fairly?

Archbishop Weakland is a very important character in the film. He was Archbishop of Milwaukee from 1977 to 2002, and, before that, Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order. He was also at the forefront of the liberal wing of the Catholic Church, a champion for social justice and the rights of women within the church. Early on, he did not cover himself with glory on the issue of clerical sexual abuse. According to the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), he was defensive and combative in the face of complaints, and may have sanctioned the shuttling around of abusive priests. In 2002, he was also embroiled in a scandal surrounding charges that he used $450,000 in church funds to pay blackmail to a male lover (a grown man and a consenting adult). Later, he came out as openly gay and now lives on a church pension in Milwaukee. 

Yet he plays a very important role in the story of Father Murphy. In order to get justice for the deaf survivors, he approached Rome to start the canonical trial against Murphy  and argued forcefully that he be defrocked. His efforts failed. Through Weakland, we see how the process works. And through him, we have a personal connection to Ratzinger, whom he knew well. Weakland was initially somewhat insensitive to the issue of clerical sex abuse, but came to understand that he had been wrong. In a deposition, he responds to a lawyer’s question about whether priestly pedophilia is a form of homicide because it takes away a child’s innocence. “If you had asked me that in 1979, I would not have agreed with it,” he said. “If you ask me that now in 2008, I would say in almost every case, yes.” 

At the end of the film he also says this: 

The Church is a perfect society, and it witnesses this perfect society to the rest of the world. If we could get that out of our minds — maybe we take the pedestal away from the priest, take the pedestal away from the cardinals, take the pedestal away from the whole Church, and be willing to say, this is us, world, this is us. This is who we are. We’re a church of imperfect people. Jesus wasn’t afraid of humanity, and we shouldn’t be, either.

It’s a powerful moment. A flawed figure who recognizes that the problem in the church is the abuse of power. He argues for a sense of humanity that the hierarchy of the church seems to have lost in defending its prestige.

So much of the narrative of this story is a tale of white and black hats. Weakland’s miter is gray, and that makes him interesting. He is willing, unlike many high-ranking clerics, to reflect on his own failings and those of the church. 

4. Weakland was succeeded by Timothy Dolan, who led the church’s efforts to address the problem in the Milwaukee archdiocese. He has since emerged as the church’s leading spokesman in the United States. Dolan claims to have “cleaned up” the problems in Milwaukee. Is that a fair characterization?

No. What Dolan did was try to protect the Archdiocese of Milwaukee by taking money off its books to avoid paying abuse claims. According to an article in the New York Times, $75 million “disappeared from the church’s investments in 2005.” Then, in 2007, Dolan moved $55 million of church funds to a cemetery trust. Dolan has claimed that he did this merely to make sure that the gravestones were properly cared for. At that price, one could assign a personal valet to every stone.

In the film, we focus on the pristine headstone of Father Murphy. Even in death, he is treated better than the survivors of his abuse. 

5. Two church prelates have now faced criminal charges in the United States and been convicted and sentenced for their roles in child abuse. Do you believe that the criminal-justice system is a part of the solution to the church’s child-abuse problem?

Yes. Last year, Monsignor William Lynn was convicted of covering up sex abuse by priests in his parish. And in Kansas City, Bishop Robert Finn was convicted of failing to report suspected child abuse. Both cases are important, not only because the convicted men are prelates but because they were found guilty of covering up crimes. Now we see in Los Angeles that documents revealed through civil suits — how important these documents have been! — show that Cardinal Roger Mahony actively shielded priests accused of sex abuse. The U.S. Attorney’s office is reviewing the case to see if charges should be filed.

For many years, law enforcement in heavily Catholic cities was often complicit in cover-ups. That was certainly the case in Milwaukee. Now, law enforcement is becoming more aggressive, and it is having the effect of holding church officials to account. After all, predators consciously hide behind the walls of faith, which protect them from inquiry — particularly when their superiors fortify those walls with silence. Only criminal investigations can break them down. 

At the same time, civil suits are forcing the church to disgorge documents that reveal past and present sex abuse cover-ups. Survivors of abuse seem to be united on one issue: release the documents! If one thing could be accomplished from this global crisis, it would be to force the Vatican to open its archives on clerical sex abuse.

In our film, the example of Ireland is the most striking. For years and years, it was fair to say that the country had no real division between church and state. But now, in the wake of an impressive series of government inquiries into clerical sex abuse, we see the Irish prime minister Enda Kenny demand that the Vatican be held to account for the cover-up of the “rape and torture of children.” A statement like that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. The times they are a-changin’.

6. Pope Benedict XVI is, as you say, the man who knows better than any other the scope of the church’s problem, and yet he seems to be conflicted and incapable of dealing with it seriously. Given the awesome power he holds, why can’t he address the problem more forcefully?

Pope Benedict is a prisoner of the system over which he presides. While he has offered a muted apology to some victims, he has been unwilling to accept responsibility for the cover-up by the church hierarchy, which of course includes himself. He continues to lash out at those who want to discuss female ordination (or even female participation in the Mass) and the end of forced celibacy, claiming the infallibility of church “doctrine” without ever acknowledging the role of men in making it up. 

Like other high-ranking members of the Curia, the pope puts the reputation of the church above the safety of children. If that sounds shocking, it is. But how else to explain the fact that the Vatican won’t disgorge the sex abuse documents from its archive, which might explain the prior abuse of children and protect children in the present and future?

The case of Maciel (told in the film) is instructive. By all accounts, Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to bring Maciel to justice but was unwilling to challenge his protectors, Vatican secretary of state Angelo Sodano and Pope John Paul II. When John Paul was dying, Ratzinger commenced an investigation into Maciel’s monstrous behavior, but when he became Pope, he willingly abandoned the canonical trial to defrock Maciel. What kind of message does that send? And what kind of message did it send that the announcement of the trial’s end came from Sodano?

As Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger was also involved in the transfer of a pedophile priest to resume pastoral duties in another parish where he subsequently abused other children. As pope, he has referred to the sex-abuse crisis as “the crater of a volcano, out of which suddenly a tremendous cloud of filth came, darkening and soiling everything.” While that comment clearly shows his disgust for clerical predators and reckons with the damage done to the reputation of the church, it also betrays the fact that his concern is primarily for the institution, not the children. It’s as if to say that the church does so much good (and we should all acknowledge that the church does help the poor and provides educational opportunities), we should not allow a momentary “eruption” to soil the essence of the church as he sees it. But if the church covers up pedophilia, what kind of church is it?

 
Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Number of toilet seats at the EU Parliament building in Brussels that a TV station had tested for cocaine:

46

Happiness creates a signature smell in human sweat that can induce happiness in those who smell it.

Trump struggles to pronounce “anonymous”; a Sackler stands to profit from a new drug to treat opioid addiction; housing development workers in the Bronx are accused of having orgies on the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today