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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
Amen!
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.
Not to mention the useful idiots who would otherwise disregard anything the NYT writes.
Do you walk up to a cage full of monkeys throwing their leavings at you?
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.
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):
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.
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.
Feeding the vocal anti-Catholic lower classes who frequent FR is only a windfall.
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.
“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.
hmmmmm
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 :
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.
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.
The NYTimes ought to spend as much time on our REAL enemies, like Islamic Jihadists, as they do the Catholic Church!!!!
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.