I encourage my Catholic FReeper friends to read the article, I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.
It appears the universal church is far from having a universal response to the problem. Couple that with the Pope's inability or unwillingness to remove Bishops/Cardinals and it becomes obvious that nothing has changed decades.
Interesting read regarding Ratzinger and Vatican bureaucracy which impeded the handling of sex abuse cases.
This will not be an “even handed” thread.
Why is there no barf alert on this article?
It must be July already as I see the Times’ monthly Catholic bashing article has arrived.
It’s as evenhanded as the Devil’s haircut. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out, it ends with innuendo because that’s all the NYSlimes has: innunendo.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/hells-bible-spits-more-goo-in-pope-benedicts-direction/
It’s aimed at bringing down Benedict. It has NOTHING to do with concern over sex abuse.
Freepers don’t post NYSlimes stuff and call it evenhanded when it has to do with other topics.
Because NYSlimes stuff is seldom evenhanded.
Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.”
You don’t have a clue.
It’s from the New York Times. No even-handedness. And I didn’t even bother to read it.
The structure of the Catholic Church is frequently misunderstood, and many people, particularly non-Catholics, think it is a place where the Pope nods his head and minions run off to do his bidding. For better or for worse, this has never been how things have worked; if you look as far back as the Middle Ages, and in fact, even look back at the early Church, you will see how difficult it was to exert authority over an increasingly wide-spread Church.
The bishops, successors to the Apostles, are supposed to be the direct channels for the teaching and sacramental life of the Church. But there are lots of bishops and historically many of them have simply gone their own way without Rome’s being able to do much about it until such time as things reach a crisis point and these bishops are their own undoing. The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.
In my opinion, however, something that added to the difficulties of managing the Church was the vast change that occurred at Vatican II. Bishops suddenly got the idea that they were virtually free agents (although on a national basis) and the establishment of the dread national councils of bishops (the USCCB, in this case) gave them the power as a bloc to resist any supervision or discipline. The bishops’ conferences or councils were not provided for in canon law, IIRC, and were only retroactively added during the revision of the code, after they had already been in operation for some time.
What these organizations did was enable the liberal power-players appointed by Paul VI not only to govern their own dioceses sometimes in opposition to Rome, but to prevent individual bishops who were less powerful (from smaller dioceses, who were often more orthodox) from doing the things that would have been right to correct any problems at a local level and to communicate with Rome. The various bishops’ committees on child abuse were less a way of solving the problem than a way of preventing Rome from having any effect and making any changes (particularly anything that would clean up the problem with gays, which is something Ratzinger did work on and which has earned him the hatred of the gay lobbies and the NY Times).
Disobedient bishops have always been a problem and they have always been very difficult to remove, in part because they are not just functionaries, the way a Protestant bishop might be, but have a function in the sacraments and the theological life of the church. Priests, for example, are essentially just the delegates of the bishop, who imparts his sacramental powers to them.
As for the Times, they hate BXVI because he has always been on their hit list. They liked JPII, partly because he was a lot more liberal than Ratzinger, and partly precisely because he was a very lax and weak administrator. Many of the truly awful things happened when Paul VI was Pope, but the 80’s (JPII) weren’t great, either. On his behalf, however, I will say that JPII did seem to have the intention of reforming things, but after the assassination attempt, he seemed to lose his direction (possibly because of his health problems as a result of his injuries) and I think it was really only the increasing influence of Ratzinger that prevented even more chaos.
Ah yes, the New York Times is so even-handed in general to begin with, of course.
It's even fairer to institutions that all of its employees despise.
It's interesting that a self-styled conservative would point to the umpteenth NYT hatchet job on the Pope as "even-handed."
I trust NYT coverage on any religion matters as much as I trust their coverage of the Tea Party movement.
Given the NY Times historic anti-Catholic bigotry I have difficulty looking at any essay on the Church as serious commentary. Albeit dressed in an the clothing of analysis of the sex abuse scandal this is another hit-piece on the Pope. The Times could show its bonafides if it discussed the real nature of the scandal. It’s not about pedophilia but ephebophilia largely of a homosexual nature. Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The Times won’t touch that because it would interfere with their orthodox PC credentials.
“I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.”
From the article:
“Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.”
Do you really think that statement is even handed? That would only be a fair statement if marxism actually is a way of empowering the poor and oppressed, like the NYslimes. It is not “even handed”.
Freegards
There will be howls how the NYT and various news media are attempting to “bring down the Church” and such, yet when the Boston Globe writers produced a book based upon their investigations it was one of the best around.
Secondly, it must be pointed out that the debates at the Vatican presented by the article have nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with removing priests from active ministry or protecting children. These issues were, and are, the responsibility of the local bishop. Rather they have to do with removing priests from the clerical state, a complex relationship of rights and responsibilities between the priest and the Church. To present this issue as if it were about protecting children is a gross misrepresentation.
As to the issue of bias on the part of the NYT. The first question is why is this news? These were events that happened 10-20 years ago. There is clearly a drum beat to keep this issue in the public eye and to attach responsibility to the pope. Then there is the issue of false reporting. I will give a few examples:
The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm. But for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere.The implication, of course, is that the congregation had the responsibility to initiate its own investigations, sending out agents like the FBI to root out abusive priests. The truth, however, is that the congregation could only handle cases that were sent to it by the bishops. No referral, no action. Indeed, Rome would not even know about the cases unless they were referred by the bishops. The Vatican is not the federal government with vast resources for law enforcement. One would be surprised at how small the staffs at the Vatican really are.
But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction.By this the NYT is implying that the pope, having full knowledge of the extent of the abuse, was actively involved in a cover-up to obstruct justice. Rather, everyone was slow to appreciate the extent of the problem and were struggling with a legal structure that was inadequate to the issue; a problem shared with public criminal law.
During this period, the three dozen staff members working for Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were busy pursuing other problems. These included examining supernatural phenomena, like apparitions of the Virgin Mary, so that hoaxes did not “corrupt the faith,” according to the Rev. Brian Mulcahy, a former member of the staff. Other sections weighed requests by divorced Catholics to remarry and vetted the applications of former priests who wanted to be reinstated. …Notice the size of the staff, three dozen, to handle the doctrinal work of a church of over 1 billion members. Then notice how the implication is being made that the congregation was being negligent on the issue of priest abuse because is was busy with unimportant "supernatural phenomena" and other issues, persecuting innocent theologian while ignoring abusive priests. Rather, these other issues of a theological nature are the primary responsibility of the congregation. It is the responsibility of the bishops to discipline their priests. The congregation only gets involved in the limited question of reduction from the clerical state when it is referred by a bishop. And yes, there is, rightly, the question of following canon law. What those bishops who are now trying to shift the blame to Rome were trying to do was avoid the hard work of following the law, wanting to take a short-cut through a simple administrative act. This might be appealing until you raise the question of justice for falsely accused priests. But what are a few ruined lives in exchange for good PR?As Father Gauthé was being prosecuted in Louisiana, Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine. Later, he also reined in a Dutch theologian who thought lay people should be able to perform priestly functions, and an American who taught that Catholics could dissent from church teachings about abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality.
Other misrepresentations could be presented from the article. It is clear that the NYT is not just reporting news but is trying to advance an agenda. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone, should it?
What a hit piece. Take for instance this statement.
“Yet throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome, according to church documents and interviews with bishops and canon lawyers.”
Umm let’s see how many bishop’s were interviewed: Archbishop Philip Edward Wilson of Adelaide,
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (a notorius dissenter), Eamonn Walsh, auxiliary bishop of Dublin. O.k. that is three interviewed. No doubt proof of Benedict’s guilt. As to canon lawyers only two were interviewed. Would there be canon lawyers who did not agree with these laweyer’s take on the matter. Yes. They are laywers after all. Bottom line can anything be conclusivly proven by these interviews. Nope.
“Archbishop Wilson said he had stumbled across the old instructions as a canon law student in the early 1990s. And he eventually learned that canonists were deeply divided on whether the old instructions or the 1983 canon law — which were at odds on major points — should hold sway.
If the old instructions had prevailed, then there would be no cause for confusion among bishops across the globe: all sexual abuse cases would fall under Cardinal Ratzinger’s jurisdiction.
“(The Vatican has recently insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was responsible only for cases related to priests who solicited sex in the confessional, but the 1922 instructions plainly gave his office jurisdiction over sexual abuse cases involving “youths of either sex” that did not involve violating the sacrament of confession.)”
What the article fails to make clear is that after the 1983 canon law was published it remained unclear whether CDF still retained jurisdiction over these grave crimes. Because of this most of the cases were handled by congregation for the clergy (they were not just ignored all together if they advanced to the status of requiring a canonical trial). In 2001 it was clarified that CDF did have jurisdiction over these crimes.
The article makes it sound as if sexual abuse cases were simply not handled during this time. That is not true they were not handled by CDF due to the confusion between the norms and 1983 canon law.
The NYT seems unaware that the congregations (offices such as Congregation for the Clergy)are not infallible when it comes to Canon law. Much like congress relying on legal advice about the powers and duties of their offices the these congregations would defer to canon lawyers in determining the scope and limits of their offices. There is nothing nefarious about this. Should it have been clarified much sooner? Yes. Did the Vatican sit on this as the one Canon lawyer implies? No it means only this that while their was confusion about the contradictions in 1983 canon law and the norms the cases of priests who sexually abused children were not exclusively handles by CDF. But they were handled.
And I think the NYT made sure they found canon lawyers who would give them quotes that supported the NYT’s conclusions. Two canon lawyers are not that great a number.
Another blatant twisting of facts is this (notice the contradiction in the article itself).
“Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
After another abuse scandal in 1992 in Fall River, Mass., bishops in the United States pressed the Vatican for an alternative to the slow and arcane canonical justice system. Without a full canonical trial, clerics accused of abuse could not be dismissed from the priesthood against their will (although a bishop could impose some restrictions short of that). In 1993, John Paul said he had heard the American bishops’ pleas and convened a joint commission of American and Vatican canonists to propose improvements.
John Paul rejected its proposal to let bishops dismiss priests using administrative procedures, without canonical trials”
Notice how the agenda of the NYT is presented. First we are told that Bishops did have the power to remove priests from having contact with children. A very important tool in protecting children from abusive priests. And probably the most direct and immediate one. Yet the subsequent paragraph discussing dismissal from the priesthood tells us that “the bishops could impose some restrictions short of that” Not bothering to emphasis that these restrictions were the most effective for the safety of children.
The article than laments Pope John Paul’s refusal to allow dismissal without a canonical trial. The conclusion we are to draw. The Bishops hands are tied they can not dismiss the priests who are abusing children and the Vatican refuses to act on this problem.
The use of the word dismissal is very misleading. It does not the removal from duties or the restriction of their ministry or any other means used by the Bishops to keep a priest away from potential victims. Dismissal here refers to being removed from the clerical state or laicization. It does nothing to further protect victims as that can be handled by the discipline of the Bishop. Should the Bishops have the right to use administrative procedures to laicize a priest? I don’t think they should. For many reasons but mainly because laicization is not required to remove a priest from his ministerial duties and keep him away from children.
This Q & A from the Arizona Sun about a priest who was guilty of sexual abuse. explains this.
http://www.catholicsun.org/2010/february/16/fushek-q-and-a.html
We can glean the reason for the NYT’s hatred for and determination to cast scandal at this Pope by reading the following: “The heart of the office, though, was its doctrinal section. Cardinal Ratzinger, a German theologian appointed prefect of the congregation in 1981, aimed his renowned intellectual firepower at what he saw as “a fundamental threat to the faith of the church” — the liberation theology movement sweeping across Latin America.
As Father Gauthé was being prosecuted in Louisiana, Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine. Later, he also reined in a Dutch theologian who thought lay people should be able to perform priestly functions, and an American who taught that Catholics could dissent from church teachings about abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality.” You better believe that if the Church embraced Marxism and gave her blessing to abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexual behavior we would hear as much about the sexual abuse in the Church as we do about sexual abuse in government schools.
And let’s not forget that Cardinal Ratzinger did not care about sexual abuse “Another hint of his priorities came at a synod in 1990, when a bishop from Calgary gingerly mentioned the growing sexual abuse problem in Canada. When Cardinal Ratzinger rose to speak, however, it was of a different crisis: the diminishing image of the priesthood since the Second Vatican Council, and the “huge drop” in the numbers of priests as many resigned.” Yep at one synod where the subject is brought up the Cardinal does not speak about it in his prepared public address. That can only mean it did not matter to him. It would be nice to know the purpose of meeting. Where was it held?
And the NYT keeps believing it is entitled to its own facts. “But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s “ No where in the article is this proven or even given cause to be believed.
Now just no one believes I don’t hold that even a blind pig can find an acorn I do agree with the NYT assertion in one matter. I do agree the norms for the reporting accusation of abuse should be universally applied and that the Vatican should instruct all Bishops that priests so accussed should be suspended from office until determination of his guilt is made in any civil or criminal actions.
I also agree that too many Vatican officials just did not get the magnitude of the problem. That they were way too slow to address the problem. That they failed the victims in more ways than can ever be defended. And yes in that then Cardinal Ratzinger did not press more for his office to be in charge of these cases as stated in the norms, he failed. But nothing says he could have made this happen by fiat.
The NYT relies on people not carefully reading the article to see if what the NYT opines is supported by the facts known in and outside the scope of the article. As usual it does not.
And do you REALLY believe the NY Slimes.
My perspective is that if the priest or minister is guilty to go ahead and have a trial. It’s the individual that committed the offense/sin, not the Pope.
I also have a problem with many of these stories because they presume guilty until proven innocent. I thought our court system was founded on “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
I have first hand knowledge of this with a priest who spoke to the public about his trial with three attorneys who also attended the trial as spectators. (One from my parish and two from a neighboring parish.) There were state records that proved he was NOT even with the accusers on the day they claimed they were molested. On the first one — the priest was not even working there yet; on the second one — the priest had moved from that assignment to another; and on the third case — another priest took the individual to see the site where his sister died and not the accused priest. The second priest also was at the public meeting and spoke up.
The three attorneys thought it would be slam dunk trial with all this evidence that the priest was not even with the accusers on the dates supposedly important to their individual cases — and remember, there were state records to back up those dates.
The trial went on and on and the three attorneys knew something was terribly wrong. So when the jury came back and pronounced the priest guilty they were horrified. One chased after a juror who left hurriedly, but the juror would not talk. As a second juror left he talked — “When we got into the deliberation room they said, ‘Well, he’s a Catholic priest, so he’s got to be guilty.’”
I find that attitude present here on FR among many God-fearing Republicans too, and it stuns me. I will always speak out for a fair trial and “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.’ Don’t take that attitude to mean that I support offenders of any origin, please. Just see that a fair trial is held before making any accuasations at all. As Republicans, don’t we always look for the facts? Why then, with Catholic priests does this attitutde of guilty until provene innocent persist? (And among many professes Christians, I might add!!!!!)
I have posted facts and back-up threads before that the most probably pedophiles are (in order)
fathers
teachers
coaches
Protestant ministers
amd priests are way down on the list.
Now, as as someone who believes in God and believes in our court system....are you going to continue to say that ALL the priests are guilty until proven innocoent?
Because I have first-hand knowledge of a case that was bogus — I understand that some people might think I support the offending priests. I do not. They need to have their day in court with a FAIR trial.
I will post supporting threads on the order of pedophile offenses in the next post.
May God continue to bless you as you pursue your full belief in his mercy. Amen.
Thanks for posting the article for me. I’ve never been able to figure out how to do it.
BTW, drudge a link to this article on his site as well.
While the NYT can be disgustingly liberal, it is still one of the last publications that sometimes prints uncomfortable truths.
From What Does the Prayer Really Say:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/the-key-purposeful-error-in-the-nytimes-new-attack-on-pope-benedict/
*****
The real problem is that [the New York Times] absolutely get[s] wrong the 1962 document Crimen sollicitationis.
And because the editors of Hell’s bible [= NYT] aren’t stupid, they are getting it wrong on purpose.
* Here is the link to Crimen sollicitationis on the Vatican website.
* CBS News has a pdf of the document itself.
Two points.
1) As is clear from Crimen sollicitationis 1-2, the jurisdiction of the then Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (SSCSO, the name of the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF until 1965), only covered solicitation in the context of confession/internal forum, and not other delicts. That is why there are relatively few cases handled at the SSCSO and CDF until the whole system was overhauled.
2) The jurisdiction of the SSCSO/CDF was not immediate. The first instance or immediate jurisdiction remained in the diocese. The SSCSO would only have called a case to Rome if their were some compelling reason, for example, depending on whether the Holy Office even knew about it, or if the diocese couldn’t deal with it. The dioceses had immediate jurisdiction.
I suppose you could object that Rome should have wanted to deal with every case. Consider that back then is not right now. Tools of communication are very different now. Given the reasonable principle of subsidiarity, there was great reason to leave the cases in the dioceses. As the situation, and communications, changed, Rome could get more directly involved and informed. But, until the Church’s procedures were changed, that was how they handled things.
These points are crucial, for on them rests the mantra that “all along Ratzinger and the CDF did nothing”.
**********
File under “Demerits of the Evenhanded Article” or, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf puts it, “The Purposeful Error in the NYTimes Attack on Pope Benedict”
I often wonder what it must feel like to be a useful idiot
The article has been debunked pillar to post.
All that’s left of your thread is “even handed” insults.