Posted on 02/28/2013 9:12:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The sudden resignation of the most senior Roman Catholic cardinal in Britain, who stepped aside on Monday in the face of accusations that he made unwanted sexual advances toward priests years ago, showed that the taint of scandal could force a cardinal from participating in the selection of a new pope.
His exit came as at least a dozen other cardinals tarnished with accusations that they had failed to remove priests accused of sexually abusing minors were among those gathering in Rome to prepare for the conclave to select a successor to Pope Benedict XVI. There was no sign that the church’s promise to confront the sexual abuse scandal had led to direct pressure on those cardinals to exempt themselves from the conclave.
Advocates for abuse victims who were in Rome on Tuesday focused particular ire on Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the former archbishop of Los Angeles, and called for him to be excluded from the conclave. But Cardinal Mahony, who has vigorously defended his record, was already in Rome, posting on Twitter about the weather.
Even stalwart defenders of the church point out that to disqualify Cardinal Mahony would leave many more cardinals similarly vulnerable. Many of the men who will go into the Sistine Chapel to elect a pope they hope will help the church recover from the bruising scandal of sexual abuse have themselves been blemished by it.
“Among bishops and cardinals, certainly the old guys who have been involved for so long, sure they’re going to have blood on their hands,” said Thomas G. Plante, a professor of psychology at Santa Clara University, who has served on the American bishops’ national abuse advisory board and has written three books on sexual abuse.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You can already see the anti-catholic implication of the title of this article from the NY Times ( and I am not even Roman Catholic ).
Implicit in the title is the question — “How can a group of fallible people choose someone among them who will be infallible after they elect him?”
You can editorialize a lot with one short sentence.
Not defending the pedophiles in the Church, because they’re corrupting it for their sick immoral (and progressive) agenda, but Peter denied Jesus three times and Paul used to persecute Christians. They were “fallible” too.
If only the NYT staff bothered to actually read the Bible.
The title of the article is a childish taunt, and the quality of the reportage declines from there.
The Holy Sprit gives infallible guidance.
The Cardinals are men who oft times are not listening to the Spirit, and hence are fallible.
Apparently that’s too much rocket science for the NYT.
Something a bit hypocritical when the Chief Newspaper of Record for Pedophiles and Transvestites attacks the Church for harboring pedophiles.
The big difference is that in the Church, they wormed their way in, and responsible leaders are trying to clean things up, whereas at the New York Times they run the whole show, under the Aegis of Pinch Sulzberger.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
The NYTimes doesn’t hate pedophiles. It hates Catholics who are trying to do something about it.
Talk about Orwellian Duckspeak.
Mahony was a New York Times hero when he was fighting for amnesty for illegal aliens.
Imagine “fallible” being used for their Dear Leader.
The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools today has been estimated to be “more than 100 times” that by Catholic priests, and there is alarming evidence of school officials covering up abuse and failing to report suspected cases to authorities.
Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored this shocking story while still rehashing decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests.
A 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that “the most accurate data available” reveals that “nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”
See here for the official report:
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
This result prompted Hofstra University’s Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the author of the study, to opine in 2006, “[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem? The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
See here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml
A Meanwhile, that same 2004 report cited an important study from the mid-1990s:
“In an early [1994] study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities.”
That is an important and alarming fact:
Number of abusive educators: 225
Number reported to police: 0
So, in other words, as recently as 1994, it was the universal practice in New York among school administrators not to call police to report abusers.
The 1994 study also reported that only 1 percent of those abusive educators lost their license. In addition, most alarmingly, “25 percent received no consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement packages intact.”
Yet, which entity is demanding EVER MORE MONEY to failing public schools?
Answer: The lamestream media ( like the New York Times ).
And, of course, 99% of the journalists and readers don’t understand what infallible means.
It doesn’t mean what they think it means. Not even close.
Heck - most catholics don’t understand it either.
The Pope isn’t infallible. The Sacraments are. My fallible Pastor told us so. And those Cardinals? They’re fallible too. Just ask them.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I would rather be caught doing just about anything than making a mockery of the Holy Spirit. They truly have no idea what they are doing or they would be prostrate begging for forgiveness. Truly God is merciful and slow to anger. It is hard not to feel a bit like Jonah these days.
The holy spirit guides the cardinals in the decision of who the next Pontiff will be. Seems that the MsM has truly given itself over as Satan’s pr firm
Wow, MA is blacked out!
exactly.
I get a kick out of these “journalists” getting snarky about it, and all they do is show they haven’t a clue as to what they’re talking about
Inexplicably, his replacement is considered a hero of conservative Catholics, even though he fights for amnesty for illegal aliens, too.
Defeat of DREAM Act only a temporary setback, says Archbishop Gomez
Latino Bishops: Undocumented Immigrants Are Not Criminals [USCCB / Archbishop José Gómez]
We were expecting a correct interpretation from someone named Goodstein about church tenets?
The Pope is only infallable on matters of FAITH. Cardinals, when they vote for next Pope, are imbued with knowledge to make the correct choice by the Holy Spirit.
I seriously doubt either the Pope or the voting Cardinals are infallable regarding such things as knowing which horse will win the Kentucky Derby or which stock will zoom up ten fold next. Perhaps the NY Times editor should remove his lips from Obama’s ass long enough to actually read what his paper is putting out.
Yes, this did stir me up a bit.
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.