News Story Today about the Pope

[Lapell]

I’m a Jew who thinks that it will be easier for Catholics to pursue their relationship with Christ when their Pope is not plagued by scandal.

Since when do you necessarily judge someone on allegations against him? Are the things always the way they look, Splinker? Since when? If this pope were proved guilty, that’s something else! But if you build your conviction on slanderous accusations of some medias because you had wished that serious wrongs would be found in the head of the Church, I’d rather wait for truly solid facts, which I don’t see much in the news against the pope lately!

 

[Splinker]

Since when do you necessarily judge someone on allegations against him? Are the things always the way they look, Splinker? Since when? If this pope were proved guilty, that’s something else! But if you build your conviction on slanderous accusations of some medias because you had wished that serious wrongs would be found in the head of the Church, I’d rather wait for truly solid facts, which I don’t see much in the news against the pope lately!

I’m more concerned the the tendency of people to assume any criticism leveled at the Pope is unfounded and nothing more than an attack against the Church.

 

[Lapell]

That’s an odd response. Are we not to judge any sinner or comment on any crime or moral breech? is it not appropriate to question the actions of our religious leaders when they touch on subjects such as molestation?

I am afraid that the proper response to this question is: “It depends”. Funny how the presumption of innocence can be applied to anyone except the Jews and the Church authorities in our civilised countries!! How would the Jewish Bet Din deal with it in the case of some rabbis accused of sex abuse on teenagers and children? Would they judge it quickly?

 

[Lapell]

Thank you but didn’t mean a thing to me except it was a cover up and it is just as bad as the deed. I have been there done that. I have zero tolerance.

Oh…I hadn’t read that you were abused yourself. Sorry… But still, the truth is not as simple as you may think, even with all the respect I owe you.

 

[Splinker]

I am afraid that the proper response to this question is: “It depends”. Funny how the presumption of innocence can be applied to anyone except the Jews and the Church authorities in our civilised countries!! How would the Jewish Bet Din deal with it in the case of some rabbis accused of sex abuse on teenagers and children? Would they judge it quickly?

I don’t know. First, I don’t believe it has the authority to adjudicate a charge of molestation. Second, it is very likely that a rabbi would be arrested by civil authorities. There’s no mechanism within the Bet Din that I am aware of which would provide it with the opporutnity to cover up an act of molestation. There would be no structure in place to move an offending rabbi to another community so he could continue as a religious leader.

Certainly, justice would be much swifter than it seems to occur against priests who engage in this type of behavior. Additonaly, the Bet Din’s decisions and cases are public, I believe. So in that sense, there is no opporutnity for the kind of cover up that the Church may have engaged in.

 

[Lapell]

I’m more concerned the the tendency of people to assume any criticism leveled at the Pope is unfounded and nothing more than an attack against the Church.

Is it so much better to assume that any criticism at the Pope must be founded? Anyhow, in the case of the article in The NewYork Times, there were discrepancies that Fr. Thomas Brundage, who was supposed to act as judge in the case of the priest in the Diocese of Milwaukee, pointed out in an April 1st (or was it March 31st ?) article in Catholic Anchor that a friend transfered to me online, among them the omission of the fact that at the time, it was the Rota, not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that examined the cases of sex abuse scandals involving priests.

 

[Lapell]

Is it so much better to assume that any criticism at the Pope must be founded? Anyhow, in the case of the article in The NewYork Times, there were discrepancies that Fr. Thomas Brundage, who was supposed to act as judge in the case of the priest in the Diocese of Milwaukee, pointed out in an April 1st (or was it March 31st ?) article in Catholic Anchor that a friend transfered to me online, among them the omission of the fact that at the time, it was the Rota, not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that examined the cases of sex abuse scandals involving priests.

So in view of this thing I am feeling quite justified to speak to you the way I have been doing, if you don’t mind…

 

[Lapell]

I don’t know. First, I don’t believe it has the authority to adjudicate a charge of molestation. Second, it is very likely that a rabbi would be arrested by civil authorities. There’s no mechanism within the Bet Din that I am aware of which would provide it with the opporutnity to cover up an act of molestation. There would be no structure in place to move an offending rabbi to another community so he could continue as a religious leader.

Certainly, justice would be much swifter than it seems to occur against priests who engage in this type of behavior. Additonaly, the Bet Din’s decisions and cases are public, I believe. So in that sense, there is no opporutnity for the kind of cover up that the Church may have engaged in.

“opportunity to cover up”… Really! What I had in mind was more to examine the case in a Rabbinic Court. For if the rabbi would be guilty, would he not be told not to act as rabbi any more, or would the case be different if he was guilty once but then repented and was determined not to fall into that sin again? epecially if he never has fallen down into that again ever since?

 

[josie_L]

Is it so much better to assume that any criticism at the Pope must be founded? Anyhow, in the case of the article in The NewYork Times, there were discrepancies that Fr. Thomas Brundage, who was supposed to act as judge in the case of the priest in the Diocese of Milwaukee, pointed out in an April 1st (or was it March 31st ?) article in Catholic Anchor that a friend transfered to me online, among them the omission of the fact that at the time, it was the Rota, not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that examined the cases of sex abuse scandals involving priests.

Yes, this is true and this is why I’m so irked by the liberal media, i.e. they failed to report the facts because their main intent is to discredit the Pope because of his moral opposition to their secular agenda.

On March 25, the Times set off a worldwide firestorm with a front page story that made an incendiary accusation: “Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI–did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.”

Falsehood upon falsehood — four errors in the first paragraph. First, the case to defrock Father Lawrence Murphy was approved by the “top Vatican officials,” was never stopped by anyone in Rome and was ongoing when Murphy died. Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, is not shown in the documents to have taken any decisions in this case. Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years. Fourth, the files were not “newly unearthed”; a general chronology had been released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee years ago, and the documents were released by the archdiocese itself.

The New York Times was guilty of egregiously shoddy reporting — or worse — on a story of global implications.

While the case was not new — the priest died in 1998 — the charge landed on front pages around the world, including the National Post, because the Pope was supposedly involved. Within days we learned that the Times was false on the facts, suspect in the sources and reckless in the reporting. All of which the paper had to implicitly concede a week later in an extraordinary rewrite by the same author. So what happened? Were the reporter, Laurie Goodstein, and her editors merely careless, genuinely duped or willing collaborators in an orchestrated smear?

fatherdesouza.ca/?p=291

 

[josie_L]

Indeed he was pointing out the hypocrisy of the action/inaction of an Apostle, in his case the Pope.

But this hypocritical action on the part of St. Peter was tangible, i.e., real, whereas Pope Benedict XVI is being accused of things he should not be accused of simply because pedophile cases were not handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Moreover, Pope Benedict has done much since 2001(when all pedophile cases were to be reported to Rome, i.e.,CDF) to bring justice to abused victims:

With a different disposition and a different role, Cardinal Ratzinger devoted attention to what needed to be pruned back and cut away. Hence his 1990s policy review and the resulting changes in 2001: obligatory reporting to Rome, extension or suspension of the time limits for such cases, more expeditious dismissals from the priestly office and subsequent embracing of the “zero tolerance” policy put in effect by the American bishops. Strong measures. Too long in coming? Yes, but for much of the 1980s and 1990s even the Pope and his chief lieutenant were fighting a flawed culture of the priesthood that had taken deep root.

It was on March 25 that The New York Times published its hit job on the Holy Father. Exactly five years earlier, Cardinal Ratzinger sent shock waves around the Catholic world when he said this on Good Friday: “How much filth there is in the Church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him.”

He was calling again for radical reform. Twenty-five days later he was elected pope.

fatherdesouza.ca/?p=283#more-283

 

[josie_L]

Thank you dear person, I have the truth and that is Jesus. I do believe that most of the higher ups did cover up. Sorry if thar offends you.

Believing that most of the higher ups covered up does not make it true, moreover, it does offend me when people accuse the Pope (not sure if you have) of covering up when it was he who reformed the process for those victimized by abuse.

 

[josie_L]

I’m more concerned the the tendency of people to assume any criticism leveled at the Pope is unfounded and nothing more than an attack against the Church.

What makes you think we are assuming?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You will never disagree with the pope again? Wow. You do know that he is not impeccable, only infallible, according to Catholic teaching. The private opinions of popes are not always to be something beyond criticism and sometimes they blow it. As a Catholic you are not called to excuse everything they say, do, or opine. If that were the case, would you have agreed with Honorius about Monothelitism? Or Arianism? Or how about some of the corrupt moves of the Medievel popes? As far as the war in Iraq, you can believe what you want on that. There are two ways of looking at it. The Church rarely supports a war in any case. And as far as illegal immigration, I could care less what my bishop (a guy I disagree with A LOT) says about illegal immigration, I am 100% against it and support the sovereignty of my country to defend itself militarily and border-wise.

As for calling this scandalous stuff “filth,” I agree with Benedict. But I think many people, including the victims, would like to see ACTION, and a little less rhetoric. I get tired of hearing my presidents, senators, and congressmen, mayor, etc. talk talk talk, I like to see them walk the walk. When this situation abates and there are real, tangiable, hard pieces of evidence for me that a new order has come in dealing with these sickening predators and scandal fears are gone and we protect the kids, then I’ll be a believer that the “filth” is dealt with.

And criticizing someone for being slow to act or being negligent, not taking something seriously is legitimate. We mustn’t get into tribalism and just look at this as “our team, their team.” I see that in politics. Republicans and Democrats fiercely defend misbehavior and miscreants on both sides because it will hurt “the cause.”

I did not assume, I merely asked the question then stated my personal feelings. I implied nothing and assumed nothing. To say otherwise is not acurate.

I too am ashamed of what has taken place, as I stated, at times angry that this is still an issue. As Bennedict XVI called it, “filth”, it should have been removed from the Church by now. With that said you will not hear me speak ill of our Holy Father.

I spoke against JP II when he pleaded publically for GWB to not go to war in Iraq, I’ll never be on the wrong side of the Holy Father again. I will also call out those who seem to take pleasure in talking down the Holy Father.

 

[Lapey]

You will never disagree with the pope again? Wow. You do know that he is not impeccable, only infallible, according to Catholic teaching. The private opinions of popes are not always to be something beyond criticism and sometimes they blow it. As a Catholic you are not called to excuse everything they say, do, or opine. If that were the case, would you have agreed with Honorius about Monothelitism? Or Arianism? Or how about some of the corrupt moves of the Medievel popes? As far as the war in Iraq, you can believe what you want on that. There are two ways of looking at it. The Church rarely supports a war in any case. And as far as illegal immigration, I could care less what my bishop (a guy I disagree with A LOT) says about illegal immigration, I am 100% against it and support the sovereignty of my country to defend itself militarily and border-wise.

As for calling this scandalous stuff “filth,” I agree with Benedict. But I think many people, including the victims, would like to see ACTION, and a little less rhetoric. I get tired of hearing my presidents, senators, and congressmen, mayor, etc. talk talk talk, I like to see them walk the walk. When this situation abates and there are real, tangiable, hard pieces of evidence for me that a new order has come in dealing with these sickening predators and scandal fears are gone and we protect the kids, then I’ll be a believer that the “filth” is dealt with.

And criticizing someone for being slow to act or being negligent, not taking something seriously is legitimate. We mustn’t get into tribalism and just look at this as “our team, their team.” I see that in politics. Republicans and Democrats fiercely defend misbehavior and miscreants on both sides because it will hurt “the cause.”

Thanks for putting me in my place…you sir are not very charitable. Sorry for speaking on your thread.

 

[Church_Militant]

There are more sexual scandal attacks on the Pope today. I was going online when I just found this is the news. "Pope under fire for transfer, letter on sex abuse ". Just wanting to know what some people think about this?

Maybe you should take a look at this thread.

A Series of Articles Worth the Read.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No need for hysterics. I’m not putting you in your place; you have every right to feel the way you want. I’m simply saying that your post makes it clear that you will never ever criticize the pope again. I don’t understand that? It seems to confuse impeccability with infallibility. You seem to think that he can do no wrong with private judgments. I respectfully disagree.

You’re welcome to speak anywhere you want but please don’t IM me anymore with vulgar insults. I’m sure you’re a better man than that.

Thanks for putting me in my place…you sir are not very charitable. Sorry for speaking on your thread.

 

[CMatt25]

But this hypocritical action on the part of St. Peter was tangible, i.e., real, whereas Pope Benedict XVI is being accused of things he should not be accused of simply because pedophile cases were not handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Moreover, Pope Benedict has done much since 2001(when all pedophile cases were to be reported to Rome, i.e.,CDF) to bring justice to abused victims:

Because cases were not handled by the Congregation, that is supposed to excuse Pope Benedict? I don’t have the time to offer all the reporting and if you only believe what comes out of the Vatican, then you probably will put no more credence in *The National Catholic Reporter *or the AP than you do the *NY Times *. But here are some excerpts from *The National Catholic Reporter * reporting on Church files in which Pope Benedict as Cardinal was hesitant to remove a priest because of the detrimental effect it would have on the Church.

"More documents have been discovered linking Pope Benedict to particular cases in the clergy sex abuse scandal, and other regions of the world are being drawn into the scandal. Meanwhile, supporters of the pope continue to defend his actions, with one calling Benedict “a coherent guide along the path of rigor and truth” and “a pastor well capable of facing – with great rectitude and confidence – this difficult time.”

“Friday afternoon, The Associated Press reported that it had obtained church files showing that before becoming pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger resisted defrocking a California priest who molested children.”

"The AP story says "A 1985 letter signed by Ratzinger cited concerns about the effect that removing the priest would have on ‘the good of the universal church.’ "

“The letter is part of years of correspondence between the diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of Fr. Stephen Kiesle, the AP story said.”

“The [Oakland, Calif.] diocese recommended removing [Stephen] Kiesle (KEEZ’-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office which shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests.”

“The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed.”

In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of “grave significance” but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with “as much paternal care as possible” while awaiting the decision …

But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the “good of the universal church” and the “detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age.” Kiesle was 38 at the time."

ncronline.org/news/accountability/more-documents-link-ratzinger-abuse-cases

 

[Robert_Bay]

Being discussed in Catholic News

closing this thread