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.
Sexual abuse is a matter of discipline, administration, and a criminal matter; CDF is and was in charge of things theological.
I would have assumed . . . before reading that post . . .
that it had been noticed that the mandate of the office
also covered moral issues/problems.
BTW, if you have a link for that other thread about James 2, I may be able to get to it tomorrow.
Have a good rest.
So then who WAS in charge of discipline, administration and criminal matters at the Vatican during the 80's and 90's? No one? Are you saying that discipline, administration, and criminal matters do not "in any way touch" safeguarding the doctrines on faith and morals, as in:
«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)
??? That sounds like Clintonian compartmentalization to me. Since it appears clear that during the 80's and 90's there was confusion about who was officially in charge (on paper) of dealing with such matters is it really credible to allow everyone to say "that's not my job", especially then Prefect Ratszinger since it was later decided that his group SHOULD be the ones in charge? Is that really a legitimate "out" or is it really true that the Vatican utterly failed to act when it had a solemn responsibility to do so?
The Catholic Constitution claims plenary authority of the Pope and Bishops/Vatican over EVERYTHING. With that authority I don't see how innocence can be maintained based on the fact that NO ONE bothered to "officially" set up the right committee to deal with the problem. That would be like absolving BP from all liability because they never bothered to consider plans for what to do in case of a major spill. It was no one's job so everyone at BP, and BP itself, is innocent. I can't see that one flying. :)
Prior to the schandal, the local bishop was in charge of all administrative issues and with dealing with the civil authorities. Moral theology was overseen by the CDF. For example, if someone in Boston were to teach that pederasty is a legitimate sexual behavior, CDF would point out that it is a false doctrine. If someone were quietly molesting altar boys, the local bishop was supposed to deal with it since no theological heresy had occurred.
It changed following the scandal gradually, in the later part of John Paul II’s pontificate, toward greater central authority, as the old model apparently does not work very well in countries infected with Protestantism.
That the Pope is ultimately in charge of this matters is half the truth. He mostly works through delegation to bishops who are sovereign in their dioceses. While he can in principle dismiss a bishop, it is a highly unusual thing to do, and we Catholics don’t like innovation.
"Lovie, darling, pull the drapes. It appears the riff-raff have returned, with their raised voices, shouting "It's a free gift" or some such nonsense. And spoiling our view. Everyone who's anyone knows we bought and paid for that pew. 'Free?!' auhauhau..that made me chuckle, dear. Light a candle and pray for their humility..."
ahhh, so it’s the SPIRIT of the law, not the LETTER of the law. Or is it the opposite? It’s very difficult to understand which trumps what in your church.
INDEED.
THX THX.
WILL MAKE A SHORTCUT TO IT.
Thanks for the clarification.
INCREDIBLE.
. . . slightly more creative than their usually mundane parade of heretical idolatry and blasphemy . . . still . . . preposterously incredible.
Hilarity!
Would you rephrase the question so that I understand it? I made no references to either spirit of the law or the letter of it, so it is hard for me to make sense of the question.
I am talking about THIS. But so much more..
Yes, and what?
Do you understand the difference between theology and administration?
I do try to oblige
with hilarity
often . . . sometimes, by God’s grace, I manage.
yes,annalex,yesIdo. It’s sort of like the SPIRIT of the law and the LETTER of the law. Just because it isn’t SPELLED OUT IN LINE 3, COLUMN 4, SECTION 7, doesn’t excuse one from KNOWING IN THEIR HEART IT IS WRONG. C’mon. Legally, I might be off the hook. Spiritually, I am SUNK.
Yes; moral theology is there to guide our daily behavior. It is not an abstraction. However, in the structure of the Church, different people are charged to do different things. Some teach theology and others administer the daily affairs of the local church.
As a Roman-Catholic I myself feel nothing of the sort. Quite opposite of, actually. Belonging to the Church founded by the apostle Peter, under the aegis of God, is very liberating.
And that there’s the PROBLEM. It provides COVER. And “plausible deniability”. And the “ability” to defend the indefensible.
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.