The Pope and the New York Times [WSJ]

[ConfusedTim]

This is a good article and worth reading:

online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

The following passages are taken from it:

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor’s medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

 

[Tsuwano]

You’re right. It is worth reading and adds perspective to the NY Times article.

 

[Worthy5]

ConfusedTim;6495225]This is a good article and worth reading:

online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

The following passages are taken from it:

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor’s medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

Yes good perspective. But the mistake is obvious. Any Bishop or Cardinal who asserted authority to try to deal with these cases inevitable " ends" their career. Because no matter what one does, the armchair can claim you did not do enough of “this” or too much of “that” etc…

 

[catharina]

This is a good article and worth reading:

online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304017404575165792228341212.html

The following passages are taken from it:

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor’s medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn’t the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger’s experience with cases like Murphy’s helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

Wonderful post, Tim.
Very impressive to those of the “liberal” persuasion, I hope.
Applause for the Wall Street Journal.

 

[manualman]

Wait, is he actually implying that lawsuit lawyers sometimes distort, misguide and practice selective disclosure of facts to bolster their argument? I’m SHOCKED!

I wonder if there ever really was a time when journalists were more interested in finding and writing about the truth than in getting attention and making more readership and advertising revenue? Seems like the structure of the media system weeds that kind out pretty ruthlessly.

 

[joe_cool]

And this is why I subscribe to the WSJ, and not my local paper, or any other.

First honest thing I’ve read in the mainstream media on the matter.

 

[Joe_5859]

First honest thing I’ve read in the mainstream media on the matter.

Indeed. It’s good to see a journalist actually being a journalist.

 

[jazzbaby1]

Everytime I hear something about the journalistic integrity of the NYTimes I think of the Grunge Lexicon Hoax. Lamestain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Thank you for finding the WSJ article. I had heard about it but had not been able to find it.

[Does anyone have the full text? I don’t have a paid subscription.]

 

[Teelynn]

And this is why I subscribe to the WSJ, and not my local paper, or any other.

First honest thing I’ve read in the mainstream media on the matter.

Yep, me too…the only paper that actually has any jounalistic credibility.

 

[L2P2]

I would love to convert this into an issue of the media attacking my downtrodden Church.

Unfortunately, I was a member of a church in New Jersey about 16 years ago where the former pastor went to jail for molesting young boys. The priest who succeeded the pedophile was one of the best I’ve ever encountered, and he had a couple pointed comments to make when the news broke. In particular, he indirectly accused the local hierarchy of being more concerned with its legal exposure than with the spiritual and emotional state of the victims.

I am sure our pastor felt tarred by his association with the parish pederast. Good priests like him are among the victims here. Ninety-six percent of secular priests, according to John Allen’s bio of Pope Benedict, were not accused of sex crimes, and presumably innocent, yet they are now the butt of public jokes. I’m not so sure about bishops. Comparing the media trials of the Vatican to the suffering of the victims during the Holocaust–as did the papal preacher on Good Friday–is self-pity at its absolute worst.

We can’t hide the truth, the media is not the culprit, and the hierarchy needs to own up to its responsibility like a man.

With respect to the New York Times in particular, they also have Ross Douthat on staff, and he has written a very good, balanced piece comparing the current and former Pope:

nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/12douthat.html?scp=2&sq=douthat&st=cse

Not every issue can be reduced to ideology.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would love to convert this into an issue of the media attacking my downtrodden Church.

Unfortunately, I was a member of a church in New Jersey about 16 years ago where the former pastor went to jail for molesting young boys. The priest who succeeded the pedophile was one of the best I’ve ever encountered, and he had a couple pointed comments to make when the news broke. In particular, he indirectly accused the local hierarchy of being more concerned with its legal exposure than with the spiritual and emotional state of the victims.

I am sure our pastor felt tarred by his association with the parish pederast. Good priests like him are among the victims here. Ninety-six percent of secular priests, according to John Allen’s bio of Pope Benedict, were not accused of sex crimes, and presumably innocent, yet they are now the butt of public jokes. I’m not so sure about bishops. Comparing the media trials of the Vatican to the suffering of the victims during the Holocaust–as did the papal preacher on Good Friday–is self-pity at its absolute worst.

We can’t hide the truth, the media is not the culprit, and the hierarchy needs to own up to its responsibility like a man.

With respect to the New York Times in particular, they also have Ross Douthat on staff, and he has written a very good, balanced piece comparing the current and former Pope:

nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/12douthat.html?scp=2&sq=douthat&st=cse

Not every issue can be reduced to ideology.

I think you are right that we should not hide the truth and need to take responsibility. However, that does not mean that there are not also biases and ideology at work. There are.

 

[L2P2]

And the WSJ too, far from uncritically defending pedophiles and their protectors in the Church, published an excellent column by Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186451300061536.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

 

[catharina]

And the WSJ too, far from uncritically defending pedophiles and their protectors in the Church, published an excellent column by Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186451300061536.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Ongoing thread devoted to this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=448512