Exposing the Boston Clergy: Was it done ethically?

This paper was written for a Media Ethics senior-level course at Husson University.

On January 6, 2002, The Boston Globe ran a front-page story that has affected public perception of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. The Globe’s Spotlight team of investigative reporters claimed that the Archdiocese of Boston had gone to extensive lengths to cover up child sex abuse by numerous priests since the 1960s. Father John Geoghan was the most notable priest in the Globe’s report because the newspaper had substantial evidence from court documents that proved Geoghan had molested hundreds of young boys at numerous parish assignments from the 1960s through the 1990s. Documents cited by the Globe also indicated that Cardinal Bernard Law, the head clergyman of the Archdiocese of Boston at the time the Globe’s story ran in 2002, knew about Geoghan’s abuse of children for more than 20 years and continued to allow Geoghan to interact with the public at multiple parish assignments. Boston Globe Editor Marty Baron, who had recently taken charge of the Globe in the early 2000s, encouraged the Spotlight team to uncover the Church sexual abuse story and to focus on the institutional culture of the Catholic clergy, which protected priests who inappropriately touched children. The Globe’s 2002 Spotlight report on the Church won a Pulitzer Prize for public service, but the Spotlight team faced several difficult ethical decisions as they worked for many months to uncover a story that had been brushed under the rug in greater Boston for decades. This paper evaluates the ethical dilemmas and the resulting choices made by the Spotlight reporters as they crafted a piece of journalism that continues to rattle the foundation of the Catholic Church in New England and far beyond.

Ethical Dilemma #1: Undermining the Catholic Church’s Virtuous Image in Boston

Boston’s population is largely composed of people of Irish and Italian descent who are primarily Catholic. A significant portion of the city and metropolitan area’s residents who do not actively attend Mass were raised Catholic and have parents, grandparents, and aunts and uncles who attend church often. The Church’s prevalence in the greater Boston community created a notion of respect and credibility for the clergy, which was seldom questioned or challenged by the public in the second half of the twentieth century. Spotlight reporter Sacha Pfeiffer interviewed victims and family members of victims who had been abused by priests, and discovered that friends and fellow parishioners urged victims to keep quiet to protect the Church’s reputation and good works (Faust et al.). Multiple sex abuse victims the Globe interviewed expressed the difficulty of accusing priests of wrongdoing because of the veil of authority associated with the clergy. Several victims explained how it is a cumbersome task to come out and say that a priest molested them as children because of the power and perceived image of benevolence that the Boston public associates with the priesthood. This reality created a significant ethical pitfall for the Globe’s Spotlight team. In a largely Catholic city that respects the clergy and the charitable works of the Church, is it ethical to accuse Church officials of covering up priest’s sexual abuse for several decades? Does the humanitarian work and community engagement that the Church initiates in the Boston community trump the public’s need to know about the sexual misadventures of several dozen priests?

In 1993, then-Globe staff member and later Spotlight Editor Walter Robinson chose to bury a story on how attorney Eric MacLeish was suing the Church, on behalf of victims who cited 20 different priests who had sexually abused them over the past thirty years. Several of MacLeish’s 1993 plaintiffs involved Father James Porter of the Diocese of Fall River, MA, who was accused of abusing over 100 children (Rezendes et al.). Despite MacLeish’s claims of sexual abuse against 20 priests, Robinson chose to publish only a minor story in 1993 that focused on Fr. Porter and shed little light on the larger, institutional scandal that it appeared was taking place within the ranks of the clergy (Faust et al.). It is evident that Robinson decided to minimalize the Globe’s coverage of the Church’s child molestation scandals in 1993, perhaps due to the pro-Catholic public sentiment of greater Boston. At the urging of Editor Marty Baron and his subordinate reporters on the Spotlight team, Robinson changed his position in 2001 when he led the investigative reporting operation that opened the floodgates of the Church’s sexual abuse conundrum.

Despite the upright notion of the Church and its charitable work that is accepted by a sizeable majority of the greater Boston population, Robinson and his Spotlight colleagues were justified in pursuing and publishing a story that essentially dragged the clergy through the mud. The Globe’s reporting on priests’ sexual abuse is vindicated by communitarianism because the newspaper served the worthwhile function of telling victims’ stories in its coverage of the Church scandal. The 2002 Spotlight piece and many subsequent articles in the Globe achieved the social justice function of shedding light on the chilling actions of powerful clergymen that permanently harmed the lives of many children. A significant portion of the boys and girls who were abused were from economically-challenged families in Boston’s hardscrabble neighborhoods. This fact further justifies the Spotlight reporting because it provides a concrete example of how high-quality journalism may lend a voice to the voiceless. Victims such as Hyde Park’s Patrick McSorley experienced depression and diminished self-confidence for many years after they were molested, but the Globe’s coverage of their bleak experiences provided some vindication for their anguish by shifting public sentiment against the Church.

In addition to communitarianism, Kant’s Categorial Imperative further supports Baron and Robinson’s decision to go with the sexual abuse story. Kant’s logic emphasizes that it is the action itself that makes a decision ethical, and that humans should act as if the choices they make will become universal law. It is apparent that Kant would approve of the act of publishing the Spotlight story because of the story’s beneficial impact on hundreds of surviving victims of child molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. If it became universal law for journalists to perform the watchdog function of alerting the public to the abuses of powerful people and institutions, then society as a whole would be more transparent and just. Kant would also approve of the extensive research and document verification the Spotlight team did before publishing the Church story. If journalists always went through the act of checking their facts and confirming reports from multiple credible sources, instead of publishing or broadcasting sensational stories that cater to public curiosities while lacking factual foundations, then the present notion of “fake news” might not be as prevalent.

Ethical Dilemma #2: May a critical source and a close friend be the same person?

Before Robinson and his Spotlight team published the bombshell Church story, Boston Globe Editor Marty Baron insisted that the report needed a credible source to confirm the list of roughly 70 priests that the paper believed had molested children (Faust et al.). This proved to be a sizeable issue for Robinson and his team because they had compiled their list of priests from speaking to a hodgepodge of victims who did not wish to be directly named in the story. Reporters also consulted printed directories of the parish assignments and subsequent transfers of priests within the Archdiocese of Boston over several decades. This allowed the Spotlight team to connect the dots and figure out when sexual abuse likely took place and subsequently led to a priest’s reassignment in a new parish. Neither the directories nor the uncomfortable interviews with victims provided Robinson and his team with a single, credible source to corroborate their lengthy list of priests who allegedly exploited minors. Robinson devised a potential solution to this problem when he discovered that his friend, attorney Jim Sullivan, had represented the Church in past lawsuits brought by Eric MacLeish. Due to his prominent role in the defense of the priests that MacLeish cited in his suit against the Church, Sullivan knew the scope of the sexual abuse taking place and the names of the many clergymen involved. Robinson discovered that his buddy could be the key source that would lend credibility to the Spotlight story and garner Baron’s approval to send the report to the presses. As a result, Robinson was presented with perhaps the greatest ethical dilemma of his career: Is it ethical to use a close friend as the vital source in an investigative report that challenges the reputation of the well-established and locally respected institution of the Catholic Church?

With the early January 2002 deadline of the sex abuse story looming, Robinson called on Sullivan at his house during the Christmas season. The two friends engaged in an uncomfortable and confrontational discussion about the story Robinson and his team were almost ready to break. Sullivan angerly ordered Robinson to leave his house. Then he followed Robinson outside and decisively circled all of the names on Robinson’s list of priests the Globe believed had taken part in child molestation (Faust et al.). Robinson now had the information he needed, but there could be consequences for both men if the story ran. Sullivan could be accused of being a traitor after he had represented the Church in sex abuse cases, and his friendship with Robinson could be jeopardized by the fallout from the impending Boston Globe story. Journalists are told to keep themselves out of their stories, but there are times such as this when reporters, who are human beings living in the communities they cover, have a stake in the stories they produce. While it could be argued that Robinson’s decision to use Sullivan as a major source in the Spotlight report violates the story’s objectivity by relying on a friend who is biased in Robinson’s favor (in terms of bringing the Church’s cover up into the limelight), it is apparent that the Globe’s use of Sullivan’s information is acceptable.

Ross’ Pluralistic Theory of Value justifies Robinson’s use of his friend Sullivan as a major source because the Spotlight story’s impact on the Boston community served the duties of veracity, justice, and beneficence. Sullivan knew the long list of priests on Robinson’s list were guilty of sexually abusing children due to his representation of the Church in past litigation. The friendship between the two men does not invalidate the factual information that Sullivan supplied to the Globe. The Spotlight story signified justice for numerous surviving victims of childhood molestation who benefitted from the veil of shame that public sentiment placed upon the Church after the Globe’s story was published in 2002. Furthermore, the story also achieved Ross’ duty of beneficence by bettering the lives of hundreds of sex abuse victims who garnered a renewed sense of self-confidence and belonging in the world. This was achieved because victims now knew that the Church would not be completely exonerated from blame for covering up priests’ crimes over many decades.

The pragmatist view of truth, which holds that truth is relative to how it is investigated and by whom, further supports the Globe’s use of Sullivan as a critical source in the Church story. Due to Sullivan’s position as an attorney who had represented the Church as defense council in MacLeish’s suit on behalf of sex abuse survivors, Sullivan was a reputable source to confirm the Globe’s list of abusive priests. An attorney who has defended the clergy in court is uniquely qualified to confirm the truth of child molestation accusations against priests brought by the media. As is often the case for investigative journalists, Robinson had to balance numerous competing loyalties while working on the Church piece. He had a loyalty to his boss, Marty Baron, to produce a compelling story by a specific deadline. He had a loyalty to his staff on the Spotlight team to support their watchdog reporting efforts and guide them throughout the arduous process of challenging one of the highest authorities in greater Boston. Finally, Robinson had a loyalty to his friend, Jim Sullivan, to maintain their friendship while attaining critical information from Sullivan for the Globe story. Given the impact of the Globe’s coverage of the Church’s sexual abuse scandal and the resulting culture of public sentiment that questions the day-to-day operations of the clergy, it is evident that Robinson successfully pulled off the difficult task of using a good friend as an indispensable source.

Conclusion

Two major ethical pitfalls The Boston Globe faced in breaking its 2002 story of child molestation by Catholic priests were the issue of undermining the public’s immaculate perception of the Church in greater Boston and the usage of an investigative reporter’s close friend as a vital source. The Globe’s Spotlight team successfully overcame both of these ethical dilemmas to produce journalism of the upmost quality that shed light on the plight childhood sexual abuse victims, while also creating a culture unafraid of confronting the transgressions of the clergy. While some Catholics lament the decline in church attendance and respect for priests that resulted from the Globe’s reporting, it is evident that the stories of childhood sex abuse survivors and the Church’s efforts to cover up priests’ crimes needed to be told. America’s Founding Fathers, who guaranteed the freedom of the press in the First Amendment, would likely be pleased with how the Spotlight story shed light on the harm that a powerful institution brought to many young Americans. There are many instances in the Bible where small, seemingly powerless people effectively take down cruel forces. Ironically, the Spotlight report on the Catholic Church represents a time when the free press exposed the corrupt bureaucracy of the modern clergy, and made it tremble.

References

Faust, B. P., Golin, S., Rocklin, N., & Sugar, M. (Producers), & McCarthy, T. (Director). (2015).

Spotlight [Motion picture]. United States: Open Road Films.

Rezendes, M., Carroll, M., Pfeiffer, S., & Robinson, W. V. (2002, January 6). Church allowed

abuse by priest for years. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/01/06/church-allowed-abuse-

priest-for-years/cSHfGkTIrAT25qKGvBuDNM/story.html