Posted on 03/13/2010 2:15:25 PM PST by Salvation
Count on the London Times to offer the most sensational coverage of a news story involving the Catholic Church. The headline on today's report by Richard Owen screams:
Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry
That's grossly misleading, downright irresponsible. The reporter runs ahead of his evidence-- standard procedure for a Times journalist-- but even Richard Owen does not allege anything to justify the headline.
Here's what we know: While the Pope was Archbishop of Munich, a priest there was accused of sexual abuse. He was pulled out of ministry and sent off for counseling. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the decision to remove the priest from his parish assignment-- got that? remove him. [Editor's note: The preceding sentences are not accurate. Actually the facts provide an even stronger defense of the Pontiff. See the update below. ] He also approved a decision to house the priest in a rectory while he was undergoing counseling. We don't know, at this point, whether the priest could have been sent to a residential facility, to take him out of circulation entirely. That might have been a more prudent move. We don't know whether he was kept under close observation. But we do know that he was not involved in active ministry.
Then the vicar general of the Munich archdiocese made the decision to let the accused priest help out at a parish. That vicar general, Msgr. Gerhard Gruber, says that he made that decision on his own, without consulting the cardinal. The future Pope never knew about it, he testifies. Several years later, long after Cardinal Ratzinger had moved to a new assignment at the Vatican, the priest was again accused of sexual abuse.
A grievous mistake was made in this case; that much is clear now, and the vicar general has sorrowfully taken responsibility for the error. Could you say that the future Pontiff should have been more vigilant? Perhaps. But to suggest that he made the decision to put a pedophile back in circulation is an outrageous distortion of the facts. The AP story carries a very different headline:
Pope's former diocese admits error over priest
That's not so eye-catching. But the headline fits the facts.
Update
After learning more about this case, I realize that the analysis above is not quite accurate, and the effort to implicate the Pope is even more far-fetched than I had received. The accused was not a priest of the Munich archdiocese, but a priest from the Diocese of Essen, who had been sent to a facility in Munich for counseling. So the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not responsible for his treatment; his only connection with the case was his decision to let the priest stay in a rectory in the Munich archdiocese while he was undergoing treatment there. There is no evidence that the Pope was aware the accused priest was an accused pedophile; he was evidently informed only that the priest had been guilty of sexual improprieties, and probably concluded that he was engaged in homosexual activities with young men.
Thank you.
I think you should pray about it. And maybe when you are older you will feel differently. i will certainly pray for you, that your hatred can be overcome by God’s grace.
I'm anti alot of things. I don't see the prob. I'm anti Apostolic Succession, Beatification of Saints, Transubstantiation, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. etc. etc. Sorry. Easier to say anti-Catholicism.
I think your best bet would have been to conclude #37 at the word "brothel" with a full-stop, and withdraw from the thread.
Number 40 posits a distinction without a difference ... generally it's best (here's another opinion) to stop digging, when one is at the bottom of a hole.
And I'll pray about your intolerance of those who are anti-Catholicism.
When i am not necessarily in favor of something, i keep my opinion to myself and figure i won’t RAG ON someone else’s spiritual beliefs. i think it’s impolite as well as nasty and hateful and doesn’t show a Christian spirit. but that’s just me.
oh i tolerate you just fine, brother. i bear you not the slightest ill will. you are free to believe whatever you like. it’s a shame that you are so burdened by your hatred, and that’s why i am praying for you.
Here's another opinion. Come back from clever cleverland and try to understand.
I have nothing but love for you. Not hatred at all.
Here's an instruction for you: Come back from leftist slander land, and try not to bear false witness against your neighbor.
Not ragging on your beliefs at all. Just pointing them out and hoping someday your outlook becomes less narrow. You seem to be too sensitive.
well your behavior on the thread is unseemly and you should behave better if you are a loving person. you are anti-catholicism? fine, go for it. why would you come to a thread where people are of that faith, and rag on it? it’s at the very least poor manners. what do you hope to accomplish? you’re not winning any hearts and minds over to your way of thinking, if your intent is to proselytize. so all in all, you come off badly. you can do better.
Oh shucks we have disagreement. Imagine the odds. I believe it was very much an opinion.
Oh sorry. Didn't know the thread was "caucus". Do you only post on threads of the like minded and of your own faith? I have an idea for ya. Eschew me.
See which one better fits a sentence, such as "Come back from that place", which is made in the imperative.
your tactics are ineffective, if that is indeed your intent. i am not sensitive at all. i am secure in my faith, i have been a catholic since my baptism 53 years ago. my brother left the Catholic church to marry my sisterinlaw, he’s a Baptist now. we coexist in perfect Christian harmony. he doesn’t badmouth what he left behind, i don’t badmouth that to which he has turned. my husband and i have three children whom we have put through Catholic schools. My oldest, a college junior, attends an authentically catholic university. I have plenty of gripes with the happy slappy catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. But the church is solid in it’s prolife stance and has done more than any other church, IMO, in promoting the sanctity of life. Bad apples in every bushel or faith. People are human, and no one is without sin.
i don’t post on the religion threads often enough to pay attention to caucus or whatever the designations are. i am talking to you, Christian to Christian, in an open and honest dialogue. obviously i can ignore you, if i choose, but i chose to engage you to better understand what your intent was with the nasty and insulting posting style. i will eschew you when i am good and ready.
I have no agenda.
i am not sensitive at all. i am secure in my faith, i have been a catholic since my baptism 53 years ago. my brother left the Catholic church to marry my sisterinlaw, he’s a Baptist now. we coexist in perfect Christian harmony. he doesn’t badmouth what he left behind, i don’t badmouth that to which he has turned.
my husband and i have three children whom we have put through Catholic schools. My oldest, a college junior, attends an authentically catholic university. I have plenty of gripes with the happy slappy catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe. But the church is solid in it’s prolife stance and has done more than any other church, IMO, in promoting the sanctity of life. Bad apples in every bushel or faith. People are human, and no one is without sin.
I'm happy for ya. You're still sensitive. Your church isn't beyond tough love and criticism. I'm happy for your harmony.
Not a Christian. My intent is to offer a bit of humility to the openly arrogant. I've done a wonderful job, don't ya think?
no, sorry. you failed.
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.