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 ...
Why clergy? Children who may have developed an inner sense that sexual molestation is wrong may not trust that instinct. And then you add in eternal salvation it is becomes much more complicated. Children then develop belief if they do not comply with criminal behavior they will then be denied salvation.
I say blowing smoke and not up the chimney.
Okay, that makes a certain amount of sense. My own experiences have me hyper-sensitive to the totally-acceptable (it seems) sexual coercion among school-age peers. (I must now go repeat, “If you hate someone, he controls you,” several hundred times ...)
I was recently observing on another thread, regarding a secular case of homosexual molestation, that it seems impossible there should still be teenage boys - the majority of “children” in question, in the case of homosexual priests and most other cases, too - who don’t understand that you don’t give a blow job to some old fag just because he asks you to. Unfortunately, there seem to be some who are incredibly naive or think they can gain something by going along.
It seems that we have to be unspeakably blunt with our sons, and talk about thing that we shouldn’t have to talk about, in terms that nice Southern ladies don’t like to use. And with our daughters, as well. Eventually they’ll go to college, if nothing else. I told Anoreth that if anyone assumed she was “available,” she could tell him to f^&* a goat.
Not everyone processes the written word in the same way as everyone else. As it were.
Not everyone processes the written word in the same way as everyone else. As it were.
LOL!
Well, you have to! You spend 18 years teaching a girl to use good manners, but at some point, they’re going to need, “Not just no but &*(*& NO, and if you’re feeling the urge, do a goose!” in today’s world. It’s a flaming nuisance!
It may seem impossible that it still happening after all the articles written in the media. But if you google you will see that it is. In 2009 there were still some three hundred cases in the US by catholic priests committing abuse.
The worldwide costs so far have cost the catholic church billions in dollars in monetary claims.
Looking into each story reveals that the vast majority of these cited cases are decades old cases having a new lease on life thanks to the revocation of the statute of limitations in certain areas. The remaining cases are mere accusations which are never subsequently verified but make good copy for “Yellow Journalists”. Thus, the occasion of fresh instances is vastly overstated once the facts are known.
I’m practically rolling on the floor laughing at this title. The Vatican isn’t mincing any words, are they?
What I figured. Not new events, but old - sometimes really old - allegations.
In Tulsa, when the scandal broke, it was reported that there was one deacon (married, btw) who had abused little kids. He’d been sentenced and died in jail before it hit the news. Then there was one priest who - obviously, to my mind - had the wrong kind of feelings toward little boys. Yet, there were no cases where he’d actually molested anyone, just “inappropriate (in hindsight) hugging.”
Then there were some allegations that turned out to be totally fabricated ... all that money attracts swindlers.
It does not matter what I think, or what any of these men in robes think. The Heavenly Father knows everything that happened and He even knows who thought what and when and where... HE will be the judge. But I will tell you my opinion this 'story' is being reproduced and timed to take the attention away from people about how we just got Kennedyed, Nanny the RED Pelosied and Stupaked.
Conservatives are suppose to be about personal individual responsibility, and crying victimization by the media is NOT impressing me.
This is not politics but spiritual warfare. The media, who represent the powers that be, are attacking the Church because she is one of their chief enemies. The problem is, however, that the Church is divided, and I mean the Catholic Church. There are liberals who would like to take over the Church the way they have taken over the Episcopal Church. Benedict is their enemy because he holds the papal throne, and they would love to replace him with one of their own. Call them Notre Dame Catholics, they have friends in high places, friends hostile to the Pope, hostile to traditional Christianity in any form.
In 1936, after Hitler had broken his deal with the Church, the Nazis began a campaign to discredit the Catholic Clergy by publicizing cases of “child abuse.â€Simultaneously they began efforts to close Catholics schools and provide all school children with a national socialist education.
When the devil tempted Christ was that religious or political?
Do you consider it impossible to contemplate the left can't or won't install their own politically correct Pope?
Christ said these things need be. What things?
The statistics were up here yesterday - 71% of the 2009 cases are around 30 to almost 50 years old.
You’re right. Some people don’t understand the word “no”. It can become an issue of self defence if a girl isn’t careful.
What turned the matter around or brought the process of a slowdown was Roe v. Wade, who installed abortion on demand as the law of the land. From Griswold to Roe, it took the court only five years radically to change the law regarding traditional sexual morality in he United States. From a Christian perspective, we now have a neo-pagan one. The bishops were now forced to oppose Roe, but many not gladly, and many of their priests secretly supported the new law. All liberal put their hopes that Paul VI could be replaced by a still more liberal pope.
Their hopes were frustrated by the election of John Paul II, a strong supporter of traditional sexual morality. However, he found the Church infested with dissenters, and at the highest levels, so he decided to go over their heads and go directly to the people. His well-publicsized trips overseas were really missions to the world. At his side was Joseph Ratzinger, who became hated by many liberal bishops, priests, and nuns as the enforcer of traditional doctrine. The liberals were too strongto take head on, so they had to be attacked piecemeal. The pope coined the term "Culture of Death" to describe the anti-life position of the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. His personal popularity infuriated the liberals but it attracted many young men who became John Paul priests. He was able to ordain more bishops who shared his views, so that when he died the Cardinals were unable to resist electing Benedict XVI as his successor. But the liberals are still powerful in the Church, and on particular Cardinal who was the "white hope" of the liberals did not fail to publish his resentment. His main support is in the Third World, for the European Church is too weak to provide much support for the Gospel. In the United States, the USCCB has many liberal /luke-warm bishops. The 200 (of 600) who opposed Obama's visit to Notre Dame, represent those who are strongly supportive of the pope. But we have lost most of the college presidents, and as the health bill showed much of the medical establishment. Liberals put their trust in politics, in the benevolence of the State. So here we are.
What turned the matter around or brought the process of a slowdown was Roe v. Wade, who installed abortion on demand as the law of the land. From Griswold to Roe, it took the court only five years radically to change the law regarding traditional sexual morality in he United States. From a Christian perspective, we now have a neo-pagan one. The bishops were now forced to oppose Roe, but many not gladly, and many of their priests secretly supported the new law. All liberal put their hopes that Paul VI could be replaced by a still more liberal pope.
Their hopes were frustrated by the election of John Paul II, a strong supporter of traditional sexual morality. However, he found the Church infested with dissenters, and at the highest levels, so he decided to go over their heads and go directly to the people. His well-publicsized trips overseas were really missions to the world. At his side was Joseph Ratzinger, who became hated by many liberal bishops, priests, and nuns as the enforcer of traditional doctrine. The liberals were too strongto take head on, so they had to be attacked piecemeal. The pope coined the term "Culture of Death" to describe the anti-life position of the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. His personal popularity infuriated the liberals but it attracted many young men who became John Paul priests. He was able to ordain more bishops who shared his views, so that when he died the Cardinals were unable to resist electing Benedict XVI as his successor. But the liberals are still powerful in the Church, and on particular Cardinal who was the "white hope" of the liberals did not fail to publish his resentment. His main support is in the Third World, for the European Church is too weak to provide much support for the Gospel. In the United States, the USCCB has many liberal /luke-warm bishops. The 200 (of 600) who opposed Obama's visit to Notre Dame, represent those who are strongly supportive of the pope. But we have lost most of the college presidents, and as the health bill showed much of the medical establishment. Liberals put their trust in politics, in the benevolence of the State. So here we are.
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.