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

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

[the_conscience]

Dear Lorica,

I did not pontificate upon whether or not Robinson was radical I merely summarized the authors implied meaning. The point is that Robinson’s orthodoxy or lack thereof has no bearing on whether or not he is a credible eye witness. The authors attack on Robinson’s orthodoxy is merely a devious and malicious way to call him a liar. That you missed that fact saddens me.

[Lorica]

Don’t be sad.

You said: “The author would have us believe that Mr. Robinson is a radical.”

Your intimation is that you doubt the allegation. Unless you have a clear enough understanding of Catholic teaching know if he is or not, you have no standing. Using the phrase “pathetically surreal” might be construed as inflammatory hyperbole, used to provoke a response. You got one, I guess.

[small voice in the wilderness]

You are right.

Compare "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creatures, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:38,39).

Hardly the words of "victims"! Overcomers and victors in Christ!

The victims plead with Christ to have mercy on them, remember them, they pray Mary to intercede for them, and be with them in their hour of death.

The difference is STARK. And revealing.

[Lorica]

Romanist Martyr Complex

I could and would be a martyr for Christ, but I am no saint.

I assure you, it is only the religion forum guidelines which prevent me from saying exactly what I think of you and a few others here.

[the_conscience]

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.

I agree completely. The headline is sensational but what newspaper covering any topic doesn't apply a sensational headline?

Unfortunately it only feeds their sense of being victims.

[the_conscience]

Your intimation is that you doubt the allegation.

The author gives me no reason believe his allegation because his article is filled with logical fallacies. Robinson may very well be outside the norms of Romanist orthodoxy but I wouldn't take this author's word for it. But then again that's not the point, is it?

[the_conscience]

Amen!

[Lorica]

Sure it’s the point. My point. Which is: you have no standing to ascertain whether or not the retired Bp. Robinson is radical or not, so your opinion is of no value. Your concern for “poor Mr. Robinson” is laughable on its face. Consider me laughing.

[Hacksaw]

This banging on a cow bell has a purpose: it is to feed anti-Catholicism to the New York upper class. They buy it.

Not to mention the useful idiots who would otherwise disregard anything the NYT writes.

[Hacksaw]

Good luck finding any that are willing to come and speak with you.

Do you walk up to a cage full of monkeys throwing their leavings at you?

[small voice in the wilderness]

perhaps the reason some have leavings thrown at them is the way they preen themselves, thinking the bugs they pick off their chests and eat make them appear clean and desirable. Perhaps they need a mirror to reflect the horror that is their walk away side. Just because they can only see their front doesn’t mean that’s all everyone else sees.

[Forest Keeper]

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.

You said it. In order to save Ratzinger this guy throws the whole rest of the Vatican under the bus. I loved this part:

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 we have gross dereliction of duty and sexual abuse by the bishops and confusion at the Vatican. But Ratzinger was OK because it wasn't his job to care about child abuse in the 80's and 90's?! What an indictment of the whole Church!!! Just for kicks I found this from Lumen Gentium (Vatican II):

"22. ...... The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. ......" (emphasis added)

With authority comes responsibility, and from this there doesn't seem to be any escape for the Vatican. "It's not my job" doesn't cut it. It's hilarious and sad that in order to defend Ratzinger this Catholic writer winds up savaging the whole Vatican (e.g. including Cardinal Bishops) along with whoever is Pope, including Ratzinger today given all these new stories in the news recently.

From the thread from the other day I hope the plaintiff's lawyers are quoting from this Lumen Gentium to blow the independent contractor theory out of the water.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

From the thread from the other day I hope the plaintiff's lawyers are quoting from this Lumen Gentium to blow the independent contractor theory out of the water.

And what would it mean if they don't use it? Would it mean there is a systematic cover-up of the sins of Rome that pollutes journalism and politics, as well as religion?

Seems likely.

[Natural Law]

"This banging on a cow bell has a purpose: it is to feed anti-Catholicism to the New York upper class."

Feeding the vocal anti-Catholic lower classes who frequent FR is only a windfall.

[wmfights]

So we have gross dereliction of duty and sexual abuse by the bishops and confusion at the Vatican. But Ratzinger was OK because it wasn't his job to care about child abuse in the 80's and 90's?! What an indictment of the whole Church!!!

They are so lost they think defending their church no matter what is more important than doing the right thing. This mindset only exists where those that protect the evil are rewarded and those that would see the evil punished are marginalized. For a church that goes on ad nauseum about works we sure do them by theirs.

[annalex]

“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” is an accurate statement. It surely indicts these bishops. No one is arguing otherwise.

Pope Benedict, however, in his role then, did nothing wrong, and an honest newspaper, which NYT is not, would acknowledge that.

[Quix]

hmmmmm

[Forest Keeper]

Pope Benedict, however, in his role then, did nothing wrong, and an honest newspaper, which NYT is not, would acknowledge that.

While I don't think anyone is trying to pin 100% blame on Pope Benedict alone, I really don't think it can be said he did nothing wrong, even during the 80's and 90's. From this article I particularly object to this statement as an exculpation for Pope Benedict:

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.

According to the Vatican webpage CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH :

... Today, according to Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, "Pastor Bonus", promulgated by the Holy Father John Paul II on June 28, 1988, «the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.» (emphasis added)

It would seem to me that the sheer degree to which stated Catholic doctrines on faith and morals were being systematically and globally violated would qualify as a matter falling under the competence of the CDF. That is, what kind of job was the CDF doing in safeguarding applicable doctrines on faith and morals when they were being so inhumanly violated on such a large scale? For this I think Pope Benedict bears some responsibility, especially as the (then) head of the CDF.

[Quix]

QUITE SO.

However, you are forgetting . . .

The dogma and STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY

in support of the hallowed

Vatican !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!

OF

DOUBLE STANDARDISM;
DUPLICITYISM;
TWO-FACED-ISM;
&
BOTH-SIDES-OF-MOUTH-&-FINGERISM.

[Sun]

The NYTimes ought to spend as much time on our REAL enemies, like Islamic Jihadists, as they do the Catholic Church!!!!