New York Times rips Pope, says he could have stopped abuse scandal in 1990s [CWN]
- Status
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
I read the same article. It did document the confusion that apparently existed among bishops as to which Vatican office had primary responsibility for sex abuse cases.
While Joseph Ratzinger appeared to be less than attentive to the subject, his boss, JPII took a very long time to recognize the depth and breadth of the situation. Ratzinger was portrayed as one who gradually came to see the issue beyond the protection of the church. He doesn’t come off as a saint, but frankly, no one else does either.
If I, a non-Catholic, were to suggest the right man for Pope given the sex abuse scandal, no one seems better suited than Ratzinger. He has the theological credibility, he knows the Vatican and its ways, and he has learned from the situation.
Don’t be so ready to attack the New York Times for being the New York Times. No one who is the subject of investigative journalism likes the attention.
While Joseph Ratzinger appeared to be less than attentive to the subject, his boss, JPII took a very long time to recognize the depth and breadth of the situation. Ratzinger was portrayed as one who gradually came to see the issue beyond the protection of the church. He doesn’t come off as a saint, but frankly, no one else does either.
If I, a non-Catholic, were to suggest the right man for Pope given the sex abuse scandal, no one seems better suited than Ratzinger. He has the theological credibility, he knows the Vatican and its ways, and he has learned from the situation.
Don’t be so ready to attack the New York Times for being the New York Times. No one who is the subject of investigative journalism likes the attention.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
The Vatican’s handling of this situation will someday be a classroom example of how NOT to handle PR issues, internal investigations, and media relations. An utter debacle.
P
Ponyguy
Guest
The Vatican’s mess, along with the BP situation.
Classroom textworthy.
And sadly, as a Catholic and a BP retiree, both situations affect me personally.
M
mlund
Guest
The New York Times just can’t pass on an opportunity to smear Pope Benedict. Whether it is the “Nazi Pope” rhetoric or their constant misrepresentation on the sexual abuse scandal something about Pope Benedict just drives them into a blind rage. Maybe it was just his brave opposition to violent and dehumanizing Marxist teachings infecting Catholic life in Latin America. (The NYT article calls that one out explicitly to imply that the then-Cardinal should not have opposed wacko Liberation Theology abuses). Maybe it is just that pesky morality and religion in general that drives them nuts.
As noted in Catholic Culture, no new evidence has surfaced to support the position the New York Times has tried to put forth by any means possible. They continue to try to spin the Holy Father as being complicit with the abuse scandal. However, the facts are stubborn things. Now their venomous tones have to put up shill wails about how then-Cardinal Ratzinger “thought he had better things to do” than protect children. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got the green-light from on-high in the Vatican to take the lead, Cardinal Ratzinger took the bull by the horns.
The fact is, regardless of long-forgotten edicts and contentiously debated bureaucratic policy arguments, the Congregation for Clergy was (fairly or not) assumed by many to be the bureaucratic arm expected to field the sexual abuse complaints about clergy members up until 2001. It shouldn’t come as any surprise considering their department is specifically named to handle the Clergy. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is named because it handles matters of heretical and corrupt teachings being put forward in the name of the Church. Go figure, falsely teaching the doctrine of the faith is the ill that is the primary focus of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The New York Times authors are either so blindingly biased they can’t see simple facts in front of them or they are willfully formulating opinions and summations contrary to the facts at hand to advance a narrative. Of course, their institution’s reporting over the last several decades has proven out that they value a compelling, politically advantageous, or culturally assertive Narrative much higher than petty concerns like factual accuracy or rational argument.
Is a large, multi-lingual, international bureaucracy going to have a really hard time fielding logistical problems globally like this one? Of course it is. That’s why so much local authority rests in our bishops. The Church’s orthodoxy extended to matters of Faith, Liturgy, and the like - not so much into the administration of a See. I think that diffusion of authority and responsibility infuriates the New York Times reporters even more. Then hate the idea that the chief leadership responsibility for abuse or scandal rests with one man in a local diocese, who is often times dead and buried. To make their bones on this story they need to put blame on the global institution and Catholicism as a whole. They need to make the Vatican a villain and all Catholic clergy and laity into either accomplices or dupes. That’s the precious narrative, and the facts can all go hang.
As noted in Catholic Culture, no new evidence has surfaced to support the position the New York Times has tried to put forth by any means possible. They continue to try to spin the Holy Father as being complicit with the abuse scandal. However, the facts are stubborn things. Now their venomous tones have to put up shill wails about how then-Cardinal Ratzinger “thought he had better things to do” than protect children. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got the green-light from on-high in the Vatican to take the lead, Cardinal Ratzinger took the bull by the horns.
The fact is, regardless of long-forgotten edicts and contentiously debated bureaucratic policy arguments, the Congregation for Clergy was (fairly or not) assumed by many to be the bureaucratic arm expected to field the sexual abuse complaints about clergy members up until 2001. It shouldn’t come as any surprise considering their department is specifically named to handle the Clergy. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is named because it handles matters of heretical and corrupt teachings being put forward in the name of the Church. Go figure, falsely teaching the doctrine of the faith is the ill that is the primary focus of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The New York Times authors are either so blindingly biased they can’t see simple facts in front of them or they are willfully formulating opinions and summations contrary to the facts at hand to advance a narrative. Of course, their institution’s reporting over the last several decades has proven out that they value a compelling, politically advantageous, or culturally assertive Narrative much higher than petty concerns like factual accuracy or rational argument.
Is a large, multi-lingual, international bureaucracy going to have a really hard time fielding logistical problems globally like this one? Of course it is. That’s why so much local authority rests in our bishops. The Church’s orthodoxy extended to matters of Faith, Liturgy, and the like - not so much into the administration of a See. I think that diffusion of authority and responsibility infuriates the New York Times reporters even more. Then hate the idea that the chief leadership responsibility for abuse or scandal rests with one man in a local diocese, who is often times dead and buried. To make their bones on this story they need to put blame on the global institution and Catholicism as a whole. They need to make the Vatican a villain and all Catholic clergy and laity into either accomplices or dupes. That’s the precious narrative, and the facts can all go hang.
- Marty Lund
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
Saying it’s so don’t make it so. They did not smear Benedict. Perhaps you should re-read the article. Ratzinger does not come off that well, but he comes across as someone who is able to learn from past mistakes. Isn’t that what you want in a pope? Where is the smear. Are you disputing any of the statements presented as facts?
N
ncjohn
Guest
I personally found the article to be pretty balanced overall. I didn’t find it to “smear” the Pope at all; it seemed more an accurate portrayal of the Church’s failure to adequately recognize and deal with what was going on and the confusion that caused, resulting in more and more “scandals” coming out in countries around the world that should have all been dealt with years ago.
The Church has taken some good steps in preventing future abuse but they continue to damage their own credibility by not coming clean about their mistakes and taking decisive action with those at the higher levels that were responsible for the “abuser shuffle” that went unchecked for so long because of the apparently-conflicting and confusing views in the Church about the appropriate response.
And of course the victims continue to be re-victimized repeatedly as they are marginalized and denied the one thing that most of them truly seek to be able to heal: a true acknowledgment of the depth of the failure that can result in sincere contrition rather than just statements designed to sound good and make it all go away.
The Church has taken some good steps in preventing future abuse but they continue to damage their own credibility by not coming clean about their mistakes and taking decisive action with those at the higher levels that were responsible for the “abuser shuffle” that went unchecked for so long because of the apparently-conflicting and confusing views in the Church about the appropriate response.
And of course the victims continue to be re-victimized repeatedly as they are marginalized and denied the one thing that most of them truly seek to be able to heal: a true acknowledgment of the depth of the failure that can result in sincere contrition rather than just statements designed to sound good and make it all go away.
J
Janks
Guest
You don’t think Pope Benedict wasn’t sincere when he apologized to the victims? You think it was all a PR statement? I’m getting the impression that you don’t think too much of the Pope. The fact that he apologized for the abuse scandals and met with abuse victims is unprecedented in the history of the Church.
manygift1spirit
New member
My issue with the article is that the beginning five paragraphs or so paint a chilling and negative summary of the issue, but when actually reading past them to the meat of the article, the evidence, if you will, the real story is much more nuanced and less negative. Even Bill Donahue’s (sp?) response was higher on passion than on factual rebuttals.
Pretty much a clear case of the authors fitting the story into the “Church bad, reformers good” template which they have clung to for so long. When you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail…
Pretty much a clear case of the authors fitting the story into the “Church bad, reformers good” template which they have clung to for so long. When you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail…
U
Usbek_de_Perse
Guest
What a sad commentary on 2000 years of Christianity and the ecclesial body that claim to embody Christ’s charter. 2000 years! And this the church Christ founded. I WANT TO BELIEVE IT, BUT THIS DOESN’T CONVINCE ME.
I am sure Benedict was sincere when he apologized to the victims. But I am also certain that he has conflicting demands placed on him, and that his sincerity does not nullify his other actions and words.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I don’t doubt the Pope’s sincerity for a second and am thrilled that he has gone as far as he has.
What is disappointing is that for all the zero-tolerance, hardline rules now in place there is no zero-tolerance policy for those in authority who let it all go on. A small group of resignations have been accepted but what is really needed, if the actions are to be taken seriously, is for those responsible to be relieved just as the priests are, or to come up with something that makes a serious statement about those who set the stage for this to be able to occur.
- Status