Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
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.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
It usually takes 48 hours for the truth to come out.
That’s what I was thinking. And on a Friday, too.
EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, on tonight’s program, The World Over, had the lawyer, Bob Bennet discussing the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal of a case involving priests/pedophilia/the Vatican. In essence, it’s Get Pope Benedict time from now until he breathes his last. (Because as Cardinal Ratzinger, some years ago, he was in charge of how some priest pedophilia cases were handled.) Bennet said what we’ll see is many more cases (real and false), brought to open court, covered by the press in full cry like a pack of wolves. This will erupt all over the country to the endless delight of Catholic haters everywhere.
Lawler is good in my opinion. Very good! And honest — that’s a lot more than you can say for the NYT (slimes).
Well, they got their target right. There is a reason One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is attacked. It’s when we are not attacked that I will begin to worry.
As the saying goes “you only get flack when you’re over the target”.
Liberals know that Pope Benedict is a good man and can effectively reform the Church in the way it is supposed to be reformed ... with solid Catholic Christian values, which is the last thing they want. They want those “progressive” Catholics.
There is a pattern here, which we observe in the case of the press treatment of Obama, the Tea Party, and the Catholic Church. In all three cases the leftwing propaganda is self-defeating. They more they lionize Obama and calumniate the Tea Party and the conservative Catholics, the worse Obama does and the better the conservatives do.
What is happening in Belgium suggests what he pope is facing and has faced for many years. Unfortunately the following is all too true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZdKL5TMSM
This writer points out that the refutation of the very arguments the left uses is in the article itself. The irony just seems to go over so many heads.
This banging on a cow bell has a purpose: it is to feed anti-Catholicism to the New York upper class. They buy it.
Idiots. Yet another reason to not aspire to rise in the social ranks.
Oh boy! Of course we've all come to expect the default ad hominem attacks against the NYT from the Romanists but now they must layer ad hominem upon ad hominem. Apparantly the credibility of the eye witness testimony of poor Mr. Robinson is linked to his orthodoxy. The author would have us believe that Mr. Robinson is a radical along the lines of Martin Luther bent on destroying the Romanist Church. What the author failed to mention is that the Times claimed they interviewed 10 men that were at this meeting. I would say the author of this article has "Abandon[ed] any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic". LOL!
This is getting pathetically surreal.
More like hyenas howling at the gates.
I’ve been shocked by the
richly surreal aspects
of most RC posts hereon for more than 10 years.
Most of the RC’s I meet in my face to face life at least give the appearance of being more rational and holding more rational religious and theological views.
Most of them—at least 51% of them—decry at least major chunks of RC/Vatican dogma as so much hogwash—even many of those who attend Mass regularly.
The idea that the Vatican umbrella includes more homogeneity than the Proddy camp is outrageously absurd.
That so many hereon fail to see that or have no courage to admit it is also mind-boggling.
What's "pathetically surreal", as you put it, is the idea that you would pontificate (oh, the irony) on whether or not he's a radical with regards to Church teaching.
According to Australia's own bishops, who just might know a little more about him than you do, they are saying that his book
"...leads in turn to the questioning of Catholic teaching on, among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church's moral teaching."
When you've got a firm theological grasp on all things Catholic, you let me know. Until then, what you have to say means absolutely nothing.
Good luck finding any that are willing to come and speak with you. I think they’ve holed up in their Caucus Threads where they can high-five each other with how well they are getting “the truth” out. ironic..
I have no need of their attention.
The sane ones amongst them recognize SOME of the serous flaws in the system though they rarely admit them publically.
The others seem to be so addicted to worshiping THE INSTITUTION that it’s highly unlikely any rational authentic dialogue COULD occur anyway.
I’ve experienced the same with Romanists. I recently had a conversation with an in-law who is Romanist and we were laughing about how so few of the parishioners in her church will go to confession because they don’t want to be in a confessional booth with a gay man.
I also marvel at the breadth and depth of the Romanist Martyr Complex. There has got to be some studies that go into the root causes of this disease? I’m sure it has it’s foundation in certain theological concepts one of which I would guess is their theory of the atonement. Mel Gibson’s movie sheds light on the extent of their fascination with masochism. This self perception of being victimized also informs why so many Romanists are Democrats. The Left’s contention that everything boils down to class struggle and empowering victims is congruent with Romanists perception of themselves as victims.
Yep. And anyone who bothers to read the NYT article will see it actually lays the blame on JPII. It's hardly a hard-hitting piece. It gives Ratzinger lots of wiggle room.
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.