Posted on 03/25/2010 1:29:03 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Vatican on Thursday angrily attacked the media over its reporting of sexual abuse of children by priests, saying there was an "ignoble attempt" to smear Pope Benedict "at any cost."
The editorial in a Vatican newspaper came on a day abuse victims protested near St Peter's Square to demand the pope open files on pedophile clerics and defrock "predator priests," and a cardinal spoke of a "conspiracy" against the church.
"The prevalent tendency in the media is to ignore the facts and stretch interpretations with the aim of spreading the picture of the Catholic Church as the only one responsible for sexual abuse, something which does not correspond to reality," the Vatican newspaper said.
There was "clearly an ignoble attempt to strike at Pope Benedict and his closest aides at any cost," it said.
The editorial challenged a New York Times report about the case of Rev. Lawrence Murphy, accused of sexually abusing up to 200 deaf boys in the United States from the 1950s to the 1970s.
Among 25 internal church documents the Times posted on its website was a 1996 letter about Murphy to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the Vatican's top doctrinal official and now Pope Benedict, showing he had been informed of the case.
Ratzinger's deputy first advised a secret disciplinary trial but reversed that in 1998 after Murphy appealed directly to Ratzinger for clemency. The priest died later that year.
The Vatican newspaper said: "There was no cover-up in the case of Father Murphy." The Vatican said earlier he was not disciplined because church laws do not require automatic punishment.
The report came amid mounting allegations of sexual abuse by priests in Europe and pressure on bishops, mostly in Ireland, to resign for failing to report cases to civil authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
There are thousands of christian churches.
You're absolutely right about that. Grievously right.
True, and few, if any, have a worldwide individual leader. That was the original poster’s point to which you responded, “Huh?”
Perhaps I misunderstood the inarticulate monosyllable.
that kinda takes us back to that central authority figure comment doesn’t it
Most born again christian churches have a central authority figure.
I pray for our Pope Benedict XVI daily.
I think I’ll commit to praying the Rosary for him daily too.
Evil has the pedal to the medal aiming straight at him.
I agree we should always just automatically punish somebody on the basis of accusations. That will keep things neat.
Remember there was no canonical trial for the priest. And there is a statute of limitations in canon law.
The request for laicizing the priest was made long after the events in question, long after the accusations came to light and long after it would have done anything to protect any children from harm.
Bless you, FRiend. :)
Yes indeed!!!
Our Church will stand, but our Pope needs our prayers.
I love this Pope. He’s a GOOD man and Shepard.
I love him too. :)
No, it doesn’t. They are unrelated points.
To summarize:
Point 1: The Catholic Church has a single, worldwide leader, recognized in his position by Catholics and everyone else. Non-Catholics, anti-Catholics, “what’s a Catholic?s”, know that the Pope is leader of the Catholic Church.
Agreed?
Point 1a: Few other churches or Christian organizations have a similar figure.
Agreed?
Point 2: The sinfulness of any individual man or woman does not change the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If Pope Benedict XVI were to prove to be an egregious sinner, like Pope Alexander VI, that would not affect the truth or falsehood of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching in any way. No Pope, good or bad, has ever said, “My personal behavior is the standard of Christian morality.”
Point 2a: If a priest sins, whether it’s by committing sodomy, or fornication, or the more prosaical gluttony or wrath, that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the Catholic Faith. It is an axiom that all men sin. We are to have compassion for one another’s weakness, to exhort one another to repent and to improve, and to deligently exert ourselves to prevent harm to others.
Point 2b: It is claimed that the Church has fallen short in the last item, preventing harm to others. I agree, more should have been done. Some erred through ignorance, others through indifference or because of their personal sin. None of this is relevant to the point that sodomy is wrong, every time, all the time, no matter who does it, no matter how they feel about it.
The individual pastor of, for example, "Elevation Church," a large congregation in my area? Do you know his name? I can't remember it. Seen it in the international news lately?
And you think that punishment ought to be automatic?
“If a priest sins, whether it’s by committing sodomy, or fornication, or the more prosaical gluttony or wrath, that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the Catholic Faith.”
Shows how hypocritical it all is. Teach one thing and practice another. Does cause one to lose faith.
Excellent post. I think that one of the misunderstandings may be that as religious, the Pope and others at the vatican perceive these issues in a different way than others. The Pope is not some kind of head “cop”, which it seems to me some would like him to be.
Instead, his perspective is right and wrong, sin, healing and forgiveness. Devotion to God.
It is a conflict between the secular and religious world.
(((trisham)))
Right in my view on the wall, I have a very large framed photo of Papa Benedetto XVI, along with a smaller framed photo of our blessed Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa together, so I look at Papa’s photo several times every day.
so people can just go out and commit any crime they want and the Pope views it as a religious issue?
That’s wonderful! :)
I fear that you may have misunderstood my post. I understand.
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.