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 ...
I hate to ask, but are you honestly as deeply confused as you appear, or just blowing smoke?
Perhaps one's faith was just very weak. How sad.
I think it's bad to yell at my kids, but sometimes they're absolutely impossible and I do it anyway. Does that weaken your faith? If so, I'm terribly sorry and I will pray for you.
“I think it’s bad to yell at my kids, but sometimes they’re absolutely impossible and I do it anyway.”
When you correct them are you doing cause of their negative behavior?
One thing about prayer: it’s beneficial for the one who prays and the recipient.
It’s always good, imho. :)
I’m sorry, the question seems a bit garbled. Send again, over?
when you yell at your kids is it because you want to correct their negative behavior?
Yes, no prayer, however muddled or inarticulate or confused, is ever a loss. “The Holy Spirit intercedes for us with groans too deep for words.”
You ... are a victim of the mainstream media.
No Catholic will ever defend the indefensible. Most of the sex abuse that took place dates back to the 50's and earlier, long before JPII. I would ask you, however, what is being done in non-Catholic communities to stop predatory sex abuse of children? This is not limited to the Catholic Church.
Sex Abuse of Children by Protestant Clergy.
The Catholic Church here, through its bishops in the USCCB, have implemented a program to prevent future occurrences. This includes all members of the community who come in contact with children, from janitors in the schools to volunteers who teach children at the parish level. We all are subjected to fingerprinting and a police background check. We are also required to attend classes on how to identify sexual predators and what actions to take. This is possible because of the centralized nature of the Catholic Church. It is also the reason why the media have been able to focus a laser beam on us. This is not possible in the non-Catholic denominations where there is no one to take responsibility.
Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year
Worse still, is the sex abuse of children in the education system.
WHEN BOYS ARE MOLESTED BY TEACHERS AND OTHERS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY
And then there are the camp counselors, Big Brothers of America and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of guilt to go around.
Well, it depends on how one defines “negative behavior.” Is running around shouting the names of dinosaurs “negative behavior,” or is it just being a little boy? Is singing dreadful Miley Cyrus songs in a nasal Miley Cyrus voice wrong, or does it just drive me crazy?
And is yelling the correct response, whether the behavior is truly wrong or just not what I feel like dealing with?
Either way, I think it’s bad to yell at my kids, and yet I do it. I think I should spend more time on houseowrk and less on FReeping, and yet ...
Sometimes I even say, “Aw, shoot, Frank! You couldn’t sleep another hour?” to the baby at 2 a.m.
Dreadful hypocrisy, and I’m sorry about how I’ve scandalized you. Please don’t abandon Christianity because of my imperfection.
“I would ask you, however, what is being done in non-Catholic communities to stop predatory sex abuse of children?”
Most communities call LE. It appears to me that the Catholic Church keeps it inhouse.
:) You inspire me.
Have a glass of South African wine and hug your dog!
I’m not a mother. I have been abused as a child however. Children learn that it then becomes okay as adults to “yell” at others for both positive and negative behavior if that is what they have learned from their parents. Or children learn that it is okay to sexually molest others because that is what they learned from their clergy.
I believe it needs to be clear for children to learn what is positive and what is negative and only be corrected for negative behavior.
Thanks! :)
I agree, but there is still the question of how one defines "negative." Is there anything morally wrong about shouting about dinosaurs, singing Miley Cyrus songs, or filling cups with water and leaving them standing about the house? Hard to see what commandment that violates.
And yet, we think negatively about adults who stand in the middle of (for example) the Post Office shouting random Greek words, don't we? Or girls who leap up in the middle of Spanish class to sing a Miley Cyrus song. And when the water gets spilled into the dragon cage and shorts out the lights, that's expensive and dangerous to the dragon.
Well in this case I would definitely qualify that adults, esp. clergy sexually molesting minors is wrong.
Heavens to Betsy. No one should be allowed to speak Greek in the post office. Well, unless they’re drinking ouzo.
Why especially clergy, as opposed to teachers, coaches, parents, family friends, neighbors, random strangers on the bus, or fellow students?
Do you think it’s always wrong for a 17-year-old (assuming “minors” means under 18) to engage in sexual advances or sexual acts? What if one person is 17 and one is 18? What if one person is 16 and one is 19? What if one is 17 and one is 23? What if one is 14 and one is 12?
My point is that we make these sweeping statements, but when it comes down to the point, most people wouldn’t say that an 18-year-old boy shouldn’t try to touch or kiss a 17-year-old girl. And what if they’re the same sex? I think *any* sexual behavior aimed at the same sex is wrong, but expressing that opinion would get me thrown out of Canada, like Ann Coulter.
In my opinion, when we accept *any* sexual behavior outside marriage, we’re opening the door to be unable to articulate any firm standards at all.
I try not to take my little boys to the Post Office. I spend much less time there since I got Stamps.com!
You are a wise woman.
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.