NYT: A Time for Contrition

[Corki]

Considering it’s the Times, a mostly balanced and respectful piece.

nytimes.com/2010/03/29/opinion/29douthat.html

That cardinal was Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI. Since then, he’s come to grips with the crisis in ways that his predecessor did not: after years of drift and denial under John Paul II, the Vatican has taken vigorous steps to promote zero tolerance, expedite the dismissal of abusive priests and organize investigations that should have happened long ago. Because of Benedict’s recent efforts, and the efforts of clerics and laypeople dating back to the first wave of revelations in the 1980s, Catholics can reasonably hope that the crisis of abuse is a thing of the past.

…

Popes do not resign. But a pope can clean house. And a pope can show contrition, on his own behalf and on behalf of an entire generation of bishops, for what was done and left undone in one of Catholicism’s darkest eras.

 

[Jerok]

Good article - it was a breath of fresh air after all the hateful reports from the media recently. He gives both sides of the story equal chance and ends by saying that this is the best week to repent for your sins.

 

[Digitonomy]

I was surprised to read this in the article:

In a characteristic moment in 2002, a prominent cardinal told a Spanish audience that “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign … to discredit the church.”

That cardinal was Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

I didn’t realize the Holy Father was prone to accept this sort of conspiracy theory, but it does help explain some of his actions regarding the press and the public. If you view the press as an implacable enemy, you’'ll avoid using them as a tool for your own purposes - a mistake Benedict has made repeatedly.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

Considering it’s the Times, a mostly balanced and respectful piece.

You did notice Ross Douthat wrote it, didn’t you? Of course it is balanced and reasonable.

 

[silentstar]

I was surprised to read this in the article:I didn’t realize the Holy Father was prone to accept this sort of conspiracy theory, but it does help explain some of his actions regarding the press and the public. If you view the press as an implacable enemy, you’'ll avoid using them as a tool for your own purposes - a mistake Benedict has made repeatedly.

To be fair to the Pope and the Vatican, although I am finding this all very disillusioning, they are living in a new world now with the Internet. They need to catch up to secular experts in Net communication and news dissemination - people with a great deal of on-the-job experience and degrees. For example, I obtained a library science degree in 2001 and a great deal of what I learned was how to use the Net. I then discovered that in some cases, even very eminent people did not not have the expertise I did. They had a lot of work to do and didn’t always become adept as soon as they could have. Some people even view the Net with some trepidation b/c they are used to having more control over their writing, and the Net has eroded that type of control.

Just one example, which has nothing to do with the Church, is that many authors are unhappy with readers who review their books on Amazon. Publisher reviews are often biased towards the positive and they also tend to be short. Amazon is the place to go to see what other readers really think. Some people are biased but if you see a book that has 20 1-star reviews, that tells you something about whether you might want to avoid it. Obtaining information on other readers’ opinions used to be much more difficult unless you happened to discuss books in a book group, etc.

There is now far more information on the Net than there was maybe 15 years ago and news stories go around the world in an instant. The Vatican is catching up with this. It’s a big job.

 

[Corki]

You did notice Ross Douthat wrote it, didn’t you? Of course it is balanced and reasonable.

I don’t read the NYT enough to know his work. I will look for more from him.

My uber-liberal sister (wants women priests, etc.) sent me the link to this piece. She’s a big Maureen Dowd fan and I sort of expected something along the same lines. I was pleasantly surprized.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

I was surprised to read this in the article:I didn’t realize the Holy Father was prone to accept this sort of conspiracy theory, but it does help explain some of his actions regarding the press and the public. If you view the press as an implacable enemy, you’'ll avoid using them as a tool for your own purposes - a mistake Benedict has made repeatedly.

Hi,

I certainly agree with this. From the beginning, Benedict has made serious mistakes in his choice of words for public speaking. He really needs help with his people skills. He needs to apologze for what he personally has done, and do something to atone for these serious lapses in judgement or leadership, even if there was no culpable offense.

If he continues to minimize these lapses, public and press opinion will just deteriorate even further.

Lux

 

[Digitonomy]

To be fair to the Pope and the Vatican, although I am finding this all very disillusioning, they are living in a new world now with the Internet. They need to catch up to secular experts in Net communication and news dissemination - people with a great deal of on-the-job experience and degrees. For example, I obtained a library science degree in 2001 and a great deal of what I learned was how to use the Net. I then discovered that in some cases, even very eminent people did not not have the expertise I did. They had a lot of work to do and didn’t always become adept as soon as they could have. Some people even view the Net with some trepidation b/c they are used to having more control over their writing, and the Net has eroded that type of control.

Just one example, which has nothing to do with the Church, is that many authors are unhappy with readers who review their books on Amazon. Publisher reviews are often biased towards the positive and they also tend to be short. Amazon is the place to go to see what other readers really think. Some people are biased but if you see a book that has 20 1-star reviews, that tells you something about whether you might want to avoid it. Obtaining information on other readers’ opinions used to be much more difficult unless you happened to discuss books in a book group, etc.

There is now far more information on the Net than there was maybe 15 years ago and news stories go around the world in an instant. The Vatican is catching up with this. It’s a big job.

Hmmm… I hear you on the issue of how fast gossip and scandalous stories can travel. But on the issue of how to respond to issues of the day, it’s just public relations, and the basics haven’t changed in decades.

I imagine, but am not positive, that Bavaria in the 1970s probably had a vibrant news scene, with ravenous reporters eager to sink their teeth into any story that looked juicy. Certainly that is the case with Rome from the mid-80s to today. So these are things that Ratzinger should have observed. The fact that there were lots of stories about the scandal in the US church didn’t mean there was a shadowy conspiracy of every major news source, just that it was the topic du jour.

 

[gam197]

Because of Benedict’s recent efforts, and the efforts of clerics and laypeople dating back to the first wave of revelations in the 1980s,

I agree totally!

In MA there were a few isolated news stories, a priest with one case here and there so in the 1980’s, I think the Church responded at that time which was a really good thing.

Once one of the first cases came out in the news in 1992, about Father Porter, who molested over 100 children from 1956-1965’s, the church had already put in these changes which helped greatly because there were so many earlier cases of priests up to the 1980’s that by by 1990’s, with these changes, few new cases and none like the prior cases were there.

They need to put everything out in the open and say we made some major mistakes but have been diligent in taking action.