Benedict is guilty! guilty! guilty!

Catholic and Enjoying It ^ | April 5, 2010 | Mark Shea

[NYer]

...of laicizing two priests after lengthy canonical trials right in the middle of pushing to streamline a complex Vatican bureaucracy so as to facilitate more speedy outcomes. Per Fr. Z:

•Again, the abuse took place decades ago.
•He was suspended.
•There was a canonical trial.It was referred to Rome, the CDF, because it concerned a case of the confessional.
•It was determined that he should be dismissed from the clerical state.
•The priest appealed.
•The appeal process was drawn out for several years because the laws and canonical process of these clerical cases was being overhauled.
•Card. Ratzinger was the one who led the charge for the changes to streamline the process.
•When the new procedures went into effect, the Holy See moved swiftly to dismiss him from the clerical state.
•Once again this is a case of lawyers for victims who gave the documents (obviously incomplete) to the Associated Press.

Clearly, he should resign or be arrested and tried in Britain.

The frustrating thing for me about the press's recent vendetta against Benedict is that their insistence on battening on anything and everything as grounds for demanding his resignation and, if all goes well, his murder is that in defending Benedict against all the over-the-top hostility, it makes it very difficult to find the "middle ground" of common sense in the reforms that really do need to happen (including, if you ask me, a number of episcopal resignations). These MSM people seem to have no actual interest in the good of the Church or even in the good of victims who are not usefully Catholic. The only real focus appears to be self-congratulatory moralism and a thirst for Benedict's blood. So this week we are instructed that Benedict, who labored to fix a broken bureaucracy is guilty, guilty, guilty of... not being able to work miracles as he tried to laicize a couple of bad priests. Never mind that the priests were *not* reshuffled, nor that Benedict had no jurisdiction over them, nor that he never tried to hide their crimes, nor that he labored to laicize them in a crappy system he was trying to fix.

The net result of the press' vendetta against Benedict is going to be twofold. First, it will poison against him and the Church the great mass of know-nothings who get all their info from TV and water cooler talk. He will go down in history as that Pope Who was a Nazi Pervert or Something Like That among the sort of people who get all their information about the Church from E! and the Da Vinci Code. Meanwhile, it will harden Catholics who care about the Church from believing anything the MSM says--even when, like blind pigs, they find an actual truffle of news about a real pervert or real episcopal malfeasance.

Opposite evils, so far from balancing, aggravate each other. - C.S. Lewis

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re a fine Catholoc, terycarl.

[MarkBsnr]

Yes. This has been waved around a couple of times as proof of the hierarchy’s complicity in covering up any priestly abuse. The version waved about is a JPG. I am unable to find it in type anywhere in the Google universe, including any print or online magazine - only in a small handful of antiCatholic blogs. Since I cannot verify it anywhere, I am seriously doubting its authenticity.

[netmilsmom]

I found it at a Schizm Catholic website, so basically, it’s the same as any anti-Catholic site.

I’m with you.
I think it’s made up, but even if it isn’t, some sicko guy DID make it up. Not the Vatican.

[Judith Anne]

I notice that you got this piece of garbage from Twitter.

I am not surprised that junk like this is all you have. But I am surprised that anyone would be so bold as to post some obnoxious idiocy like this on a serious FR thread.

[Judith Anne]

That’s from Twitter. Unbelievable.

[Scotswife]

I, for one, am glad these threads are being posted.

The first articles were troubling and implicated Ratzinger as being sympathetic to the dying “priest” as opposed to being sympathetic to his victims.

As the facts continue to emerge we can see that simply isn’t true.

No one should be afraid of the truth right?

[Cardhu]

I notice that you got this piece of garbage from Twitter.

Because you saw it on twitter Judith does not mean it came from there - more likely some one put there after taking from here or finding it on its original site.

And Mark, because it had pretentious language in the title does not mean it is a church document. It was simply the observed modus operandi of similar occurances in 2005.

Would you be surprised if it came from a site that is...

"...committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions."

[Judith Anne]

Cardhu, I got the location of the image you posted from the properties of the image. It was from Twitter. You posted it from Twitter.

And how about naming the “site that is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions.” It is for Catholics to decide if it is a worthy site or not, not for anti-Catholics. Who among Catholics would post that as the “observed modus operandi of similar occurances in 2005”?

Don’t give me the old “Don’t attack the messenger” screed. In this case, the message is so outrageous that the messenders, you and the writer, bear microsopic scrutiny. Neither “messenger” seems to have any validity.

[Judith Anne]

“Such suspicions are heightened by the report in the same article of the arrest of a Brazilian priest in early November, caught in a hotel room with four boys. Trying to defend his action, the 43-year-old priest Fr. Felix Carreiro stated, “I know 12 other priests who do the same thing” November 16, 2005)”

How about a source for that? It appears to be more garbage.

[Antoninus]

Fanning the flames is just as bad. I’m sick of it!

Then leave the thread. This battle is not for the faint of heart and the Church's defenders need information.

[MarkBsnr]

And Mark, because it had pretentious language in the title does not mean it is a church document. It was simply the observed modus operandi of similar occurances in 2005.

It is written in a manner to imitate Church documents and to encourage people to believe that it is indeed a Church document. It is a false document with intent to mislead.

Would you be surprised if it came from a site that is... "...committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions."

I would be surprised if it came from a Church official site. That, however, seems unlikely to be the case. Do you have a site in mind?

[MarkBsnr]

That’s from Twitter. Unbelievable.

[MarkBsnr]

I found it at a Schizm Catholic website, so basically, it’s the same as any anti-Catholic site.

I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.

[MarkBsnr]

I found it at a Schizm Catholic website, so basically, it’s the same as any anti-Catholic site.

I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.

[MarkBsnr]

Not really unbelieveable. It is a human site for communications. What is communicated is up to the senders.

[netmilsmom]

>>I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.<<

Yikes, my ADD is acting up.
Make that Schism.

Put the title of the document into Bing and you will see it.
It’s very Traditional (pre-VII) Catholic and I would rather not link.

[Judith Anne]

Yes, I found that too. I wonder if even the familiar schismatics would claim that bull.

You know, just because Nancy Pelosi claims she is “Catholic” doesn’t mean she is. I think a lot of people want the authority and dignity of the Church to attach to them, so they falsely claim adherence.

This reminds me of some of the other lame anti-Catholic stuff that some FReepers used to post, acting like it was all official.

[Judith Anne]

Not really unbelieveable. It is a human site for communications. What is communicated is up to the senders.

What is unbelieveable is Cardhu claiming it was not from Twitter, when it clearly was. The original site, where the Twitter link came from, was schismatic, and really really strange. Lots of unattributed, wild, utterly goofy accusations, all under the color of loyalty to the Church. Cartoonish.

[MarkBsnr]

Yikes, my ADD is acting up. Make that Schism.

Okay. I have visited a number of schism websites and find them universally as distasteful as a walk through the Oneness Pentecostal swamp.

Put the title of the document into Bing and you will see it. It’s very Traditional (pre-VII) Catholic and I would rather not link.

The Cathars could call themselves very Traditional, too. So could the Nestorians and the various subordinationalists. And the only thing that these groups do is to fuel the fire of more virulent antiCatholic groups and give them more false fodder in their fight against the Church.

[MarkBsnr]

Cardhu has been less than consistent in his posts. Are you prepared to address this, sir?