Posted on 03/28/2010 11:33:54 AM PDT by JoeProBono
NEW YORK (AP) -- New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan was greeted with applause after finishing Palm Sunday Mass by defending Pope Benedict XVI against suggestions he aided coverups of reports of child abuse.
The standing-room-only crowd at St. Patrick's Cathedral applauded for 20 seconds after Dolan read a statement calling the pope the "leader in purification, reform and renewal that the church so very much needs."
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Oh my, we do miss Abp Dolan here.
I enjoyed Father Raymond J. de Souza's article at National Review too: A Response to the New York Times [Pope falsely accused]
The principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local Ordinary, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Leaving the accused abuser priest supposedly "without assignment," and likewise without supervision from 1977 until 1996, and neglecting any effort to discover the scope of his abuses or to minister to his victims, Weakland essentially did nothing.
It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, which promptly moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzinger’s Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried in every way to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.
Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.
The real fault here, as I read the facts, was with Archbishop Weakland, who was notoriously derelict in his duties.
But because the Associated Press, the New York Times, and rhe MSM in general cannot lodge fault with Weakland ---who, as a “progressive,” a payoff-paying gay prelate himself, and a longtime enabler/protector of defiant anti-papal dissenters, is immune from all criticism --- there is this a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.
Maureen Dowd's contemptible opinions ---to take one example --- probably qualify as "petty gossip," and I wouldn't care to comment on them.
But what the New York Times is doing as a "news" organization is vicious, prejudicial, and (it seems to me) probably legally libellous.
Rembert Weakland, O.S.B., retired Catholic Archbishop of Milwaukee
By the way, your pic didn't display. Are you using img src on a .jpg?
Got it. Though I regret it now that I’ve had another look :o(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.