Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[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.

[rbmillerjr]

“Those were SOME busy apostles! I don’t see how they had time to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write their Epistles, what with all the tradition that had to be squirreled away, for the future.”

Yes, they were. Eleven of the Twelve died as Martyrs. You could call them dedicated. Christ instructed them.

Best not to put limitations on God. He can do anything He desires.

Thirty one of the first Thirty two Popes died as Martyrs.
They were on a serious Mission from God.

Severe Faith and Hard things and Hard Works indeed.

But, hey Calvin says be saved, so you’re done... reruns on PTL Club and Angely

[rbmillerjr]

Always looking or the easy way out.

Let there be Prosperity gospel.

[Quix]

I see. It’s the dern Protestants fault that Romanists don’t take personal responsibility for the lack of responsibility of their Bishops. With all that free will and good works one would think that those Protestants would be such a dern nuisance.

---

Another case of the RC’s having their bile and flinging it too?

LOL.

[saradippity]

As a Roman-Catholic I myself feel nothing of the sort.

Thanks for saying that,I totally agree. I have often been asked to what or to whom I attributed my "free spirit" and the asker is usually surprised at my answer,which is to my Catholicism.

It is very liberating to know that God gave a promise to His Apostles and their successors to be with them to the end and understand what that means. It allows me to focus on the myriad of problems confronting the world and humankind undergirded and encompassed by by my Faith with confidence,knowing that my decisions and actions will be in concert with God's Will.

Additionally,it is also a great time saver to be able to establish whether or not a fellow Catholic will discern and see things as I do by merely asking if they are an orthodox Catholic,if they are we can get right down to the issue at hand and not spend time with the asides.

[rbmillerjr]

The only thing Luther is at fault for is misleading the ignorant and easily deceived.

It always gets back to that lack of vocabulary thing. But, hey our public schools are great at remedial reading innovation.

[saradippity]

Another very good explanation of the differences in understanding of what it means to be free and obedient which is how we are formed and informed by our Catholicism.

Thanks.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It is very liberating to know that God gave a promise to His Apostles and their successors to be with them to the end

If you think that's something, just imagine how liberating it is for Christians to know that Christ promised to be with them to the end.

Read the Bible. Learn a better way.

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36

[blue-duncan]

“For starters, one could stop pretending to be God and self judging your salvation...thats up to the Big Guy.”

The scritptures say otherwise.

2Cr 13:5’ “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”

“The unexamined life is not worth living” is scriptural.

[annalex]

It is true that even a Protestant is not likely to produce good works unless he has a mature Catholic faith, doctor.

[annalex]

You can have the resonable hope of salvation if you do what the Holy Catholic Church proposes for your salvation and stay away from sin. That hope is a Christian virtue and a necessary component of sanctification (Rm 5:5). However you really know when you die and your works are judged (Hb 9:27, Mt 25:31:46, or shorter and more accessible Rm 2:6-10).

There is no quota of good works; you do them as the opportunity is given to you by our gracious Lord (Lk 17:7-10). In fact the temptation to retire from discipleship is itself a sin (Lk 9:62).

[annalex]

The constitution was written by Calvinists

That works great, doesn't it?

[annalex]

It's the dern Protestants fault

The crimes of Catholic priests are the fault of the these priests and secondarily of their superiors, just like with crimes in any other occupation and affiliation. When a loose Protestant pastor molests children, that is primarily his fault and secondarily those who were duped by the Protestant clergy to listen to their theological heresies, because he has no structure on top of him to be responsible to. But the noxious moral atmosphere of the 20c is the fruit of the Reformation primarily, yes.

[annalex]

Somebody put together a sample of abuse in Protestant communities of faith, hilariously called www.reformation.com. That groups insidents by denomination, and yes, Protestant is understood broadly.

I agree that direct comparison is difficult because much of Protestant churches are administratively independent, have no deep pockets to sue for, keep no records, and do not represent a significant enemy of the secular left.

[wmfights]

It was a Catholic ideal before there was a United States.

I think you may have really stepped in it this time annalex. Always remember it's okay to say oops, I was wrong about that.

Prior to the USA in a RCC dominated Europe the model was religion determined by the state, freedom of religion was not allowed let alone promoted as an ideal. Personal responsibility has also never been a RCC ideal. Your church has constructed it's teachings in such a way that the individual must go through your church to correct any error on their part, or to find any chance for salvation. Your church never promoted the personal responsibility of searching the Scriptures, "which are made to make you wise for salvation" but instead taught/teaches that the individual must submit to the church in all things and never disagree, or question anything.

I'm sure the last point accounts for part of the reason RC's get so frustrated by the Sola Scriptura crowd saying lets look in the Bible and see what it says.

[Alex Murphy]

Somebody put together a sample of abuse in Protestant communities of faith, hilariously called www.reformation.com. That groups insidents by denomination, and yes, Protestant is understood broadly. I agree that direct comparison is difficult because much of Protestant churches are administratively independent, have no deep pockets to sue for, keep no records, and do not represent a significant enemy of the secular left.

As I've said elsewhere, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse (which include many of the websites your Google search links to) included volunteers and laypersons. The John Jay Study did not address these groups when they looked at Catholic parishes. If we exclude volunteers and laypersons from the "Protestant" studies (thereby creating a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator, as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.

Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%.
-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

"(S)hould denominational ratios be skewed by independent ratios?"....AFAIK, no one has ever attempted to quantify abuse statistics to show where abuse runs high (or low) among Protestant, Evangelical, and Independent church leadership. My attempts appear to be the first. And I would agree with you that we should compare apples to apples by keeping it ratios to ratios, and not raw numbers to raw numbers. See especially the thread Teachers Vs. Priests - Unequal Treatment In the Media? in which I say

While 25,000 hypothesized "accusations" is roughly six times the number of Catholic "accusations", 25,000 cases out of 1,600,000 teachers gives us a 1.3 to 1.56% ratio of sexually abusive teachers out of the entire public school system over a fifty year period - more than twice the volume of Protestant pastoral abuse, and less than half the volume of Catholic priest abuse.

If we're after equal treatment in the media, I would expect there to be at least double the number of Catholic news stories as Public School stories, and four times as many Catholic news stories as Protestant news stories based on the percentage of perverts that exist with their respective organizations. IMO the disproportionate amount of coverage is the result of increased interest, when those organizations are caught protecting the abusers at the expense of the victims.

-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

"...the scandal was never really about the 4% abusers in their ranks. The real scandal was that 66% of bishops covered for the 4%, negatively affecting 95% of the dioceses in the United States - actions which cost the Catholic Church over three billion dollars paid in settlements and awards to the victims."
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009

[wmfights]

I suppose Christ dying on the cross wasn’t enough?

Don't accuse Evangelicals of this, we were persecuted during the Dark Ages for believing it is enough. The insufficiency of the Cross is what the RCC teaches and affirmed at Trent when the last to leave the RCC were trying to reform it.

[wmfights]

Alex it's nice to see your banning was greatly exagerated! ;)

IMO the disproportionate amount of coverage is the result of increased interest, when those organizations are caught protecting the abusers at the expense of the victims.

The cover up makes a terrible crime even worse and more sensational because it involves so many more people. I doubt there is any way to objectively determine if the speed at which a crime is reported to law enforcement corresponds to a lower incident rate, but human nature tells me that would be the case.

[small voice in the wilderness]

One would think that “zero tolerance” would be a GOOD THING in these situations. The sooner the VICTIM is restored, the better for all. One would THINK...

[blue-duncan]

With all of the banning and suspending going on, just to be sure you are the real you and not the virtual vision of you, on the side, out of the sight of any nosey busybodies, slip me the secret handshake.

Now, concerning the www.reformation.com.lists, notice that the “Protestant” clergy are not serial abusers with a parade of victims. No excuse; just an observation.

[Natural Law]

"Prior to the USA in a RCC dominated Europe the model was religion determined by the state, freedom of religion was not allowed let alone promoted as an ideal."

And yet it was Protestant Europe that the colonists fled from in pursuit of religious freedom, or at least the right for they themselves exclusively to practice as they choose and Protestant England that they ultimately rebelled against.

The notion that Calvinist Geneva was in any way the model for the American Republic is also laughable. The American Republic was modeled upon the works of Plato and the Roman republic. The Soviet Politburo was modeled after Calvin's Geneva.