Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amid Church Abuse Scandal, an Office That Failed to Act (Ratzinger)
NYT ^ | July 1, 2010 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN and DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Posted on 07/02/2010 4:21:11 AM PDT by TSgt

In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.

The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.

But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: benedict; pope; ratzinger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201 next last
Interesting analysis of how the Vatican's bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law resulted in the church's poor response to the global sex abuse scandal.

I encourage my Catholic FReeper friends to read the article, I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.

It appears the universal church is far from having a universal response to the problem. Couple that with the Pope's inability or unwillingness to remove Bishops/Cardinals and it becomes obvious that nothing has changed decades.

1 posted on 07/02/2010 4:21:13 AM PDT by TSgt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; Gamecock; metmom; Alex Murphy; wmfights; Forest Keeper

Interesting read regarding Ratzinger and Vatican bureaucracy which impeded the handling of sex abuse cases.


2 posted on 07/02/2010 4:25:17 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

This will not be an “even handed” thread.


3 posted on 07/02/2010 4:33:53 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Why is there no barf alert on this article?


4 posted on 07/02/2010 4:34:54 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

It must be July already as I see the Times’ monthly Catholic bashing article has arrived.


5 posted on 07/02/2010 4:40:45 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

The first two posts on your thread are an odd juxtaposition.

Janus comes to mind.


6 posted on 07/02/2010 4:41:08 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Hmmmmmmm . . .

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sigh.


7 posted on 07/02/2010 4:43:09 AM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

It’s as evenhanded as the Devil’s haircut. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out, it ends with innuendo because that’s all the NYSlimes has: innunendo.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/hells-bible-spits-more-goo-in-pope-benedicts-direction/

It’s aimed at bringing down Benedict. It has NOTHING to do with concern over sex abuse.

Freepers don’t post NYSlimes stuff and call it evenhanded when it has to do with other topics.

Because NYSlimes stuff is seldom evenhanded.

Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.”

You don’t have a clue.


8 posted on 07/02/2010 4:50:24 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.; Religion Moderator
Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.” You don’t have a clue.

Let's please discuss the merits of the article and not make it personal.
9 posted on 07/02/2010 5:00:40 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: circlecity; vladimir998

Did you read the article?

Do you not agree that the Vatican’s bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law caused delays when it came to the handling of abuse cases?


10 posted on 07/02/2010 5:02:01 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Uh, wot I said: The merits of the article do not exist. It’s filled with innuendo. It makes no argument.

It’s not evenhanded.

Get that.

YOU are wrong to say that the article’s merits are its evenhandedness.

It’s not evenhanded.

Innuendo is not evenhanded.

Is that sufficiently merit-based for you?


11 posted on 07/02/2010 5:02:21 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

You wrote:

“Did you read the article?”

Only part of it. It didn’t seem necessary to read more.

“Do you not agree that the Vatican’s bureaucracy and inability to uniformly apply cannon law caused delays when it came to the handling of abuse cases?”

Nope - because there is no such thing as cannon law. I suggest you learn how to spell “canon” before you make statements or ask questions about it.


12 posted on 07/02/2010 5:07:34 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

You wrote:

“Let’s please discuss the merits of the article and not make it personal.”

Anti-Catholic hatred on the part of people who are obessed with posting articles bashing the Church or pope over decades old child abuse cases (or even more recent ones) tends to make it personal. People like that clearly have a personal agenda so what do you expect?


13 posted on 07/02/2010 5:11:06 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Anything from the Times is bound to be communist compost.


14 posted on 07/02/2010 5:18:03 AM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
The article contains facts such as dates, meetings and statements.

Specifically:
The Vatican took action only after bishops from English-speaking nations became so concerned about resistance from top church officials that the Vatican convened a secret meeting in 2000 to hear their complaints. At this meeting, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, then the head of the Congregation for the Clergy, set the tone, playing down sexual abuse as an unavoidable fact of life, and complaining that lawyers and the media were unfairly focused on it, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. What is more, he asked, is it not contradictory for people to be so outraged by sexual abuse when society also promotes sexual liberation?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, but for the two decades Ratzinger was in charge of that office her never asserted that authority.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome.

Besides Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, bishops were sending off their files on abuse cases to the Congregations for the Clergy, for Bishops, for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and for the Evangelization of Peoples — plus the Vatican’s Secretariat of State; its appeals court, the Apostolic Signatura; and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Cardinal Ratzinger eliminated national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it in their countries. He declared that such conferences had “no theological basis” and “do not belong to the structure of the church.” Individual bishops, he reaffirmed, reigned supreme in their dioceses and reported only to the authority of the pope in Rome.

John Paul rejected its proposal to let bishops dismiss priests using administrative procedures, without canonical trials.

In May 2001, John Paul issued a confidential apostolic letter instructing that all cases of sexual abuse by priests were thenceforth to be handled by Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. The letter was called “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela,” Latin for “Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments.” In an accompanying cover letter, Cardinal Ratzinger, who is said to have been heavily involved in drafting the main document, wrote that the 1922 and 1962 instructions that gave his office authority over sexual abuse by priests cases were “in force until now.”

This sums it up:
Nicholas P. Cafardi, a Catholic expert in canon law who is dean emeritus and professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law, said, “When it came to handling child sexual abuse by priests, our legal system fell apart. When you think how much pain could’ve been prevented, if we only had a clear understanding of our own law,” he said. “It really is a terrible irony. This did not have to happen.”
15 posted on 07/02/2010 5:28:57 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Nope - because there is no such thing as cannon law. I suggest you learn how to spell “canon” before you make statements or ask questions about it.

Are you able to discuss the article without making personal attacks? See post 15 and tell me if what, if any, is incorrect.
16 posted on 07/02/2010 5:30:52 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

It’s from the New York Times. No even-handedness. And I didn’t even bother to read it.


17 posted on 07/02/2010 5:31:04 AM PDT by Desdemona (One Havanese is never enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Anti-Catholic hatred on the part of people who are obessed with posting articles bashing the Church or pope over decades old child abuse cases (or even more recent ones) tends to make it personal. People like that clearly have a personal agenda so what do you expect?

Again, please see post 15 and tell me what is not factual. Do you disagree with Nicholas P. Cafardi?
18 posted on 07/02/2010 5:34:22 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

Did you read the article and can you tell me where it is factually incorrect?


19 posted on 07/02/2010 5:35:02 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
It’s from the New York Times. No even-handedness. And I didn’t even bother to read it.

Please see the summarized facts in post 15 and tell me what is untrue.
20 posted on 07/02/2010 5:35:57 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

The article is slanted to say the least. Ten years ago the bishops were blamed. Now it is ONE man - the pope who ic being blamed and that is happening only because he is an effective, orthodox, conservative pope. This can bee seen in the fact that they rely on Nicholas P. Cafardi, an Obama supporter, who several years ago published a book called Before Dallas which squarely blamed the bishops for their handling of the abuse cases. Now he has shifted to blaming the Vatican directly - because that’s the latest fad.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29897

I have no reason to EVER believe anything the Times says about the faith or the pope or to believe their understanding of things.


21 posted on 07/02/2010 5:42:05 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

See post 21.


22 posted on 07/02/2010 5:43:10 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

The structure of the Catholic Church is frequently misunderstood, and many people, particularly non-Catholics, think it is a place where the Pope nods his head and minions run off to do his bidding. For better or for worse, this has never been how things have worked; if you look as far back as the Middle Ages, and in fact, even look back at the early Church, you will see how difficult it was to exert authority over an increasingly wide-spread Church.

The bishops, successors to the Apostles, are supposed to be the direct channels for the teaching and sacramental life of the Church. But there are lots of bishops and historically many of them have simply gone their own way without Rome’s being able to do much about it until such time as things reach a crisis point and these bishops are their own undoing. The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.

In my opinion, however, something that added to the difficulties of managing the Church was the vast change that occurred at Vatican II. Bishops suddenly got the idea that they were virtually free agents (although on a national basis) and the establishment of the dread national councils of bishops (the USCCB, in this case) gave them the power as a bloc to resist any supervision or discipline. The bishops’ conferences or councils were not provided for in canon law, IIRC, and were only retroactively added during the revision of the code, after they had already been in operation for some time.

What these organizations did was enable the liberal power-players appointed by Paul VI not only to govern their own dioceses sometimes in opposition to Rome, but to prevent individual bishops who were less powerful (from smaller dioceses, who were often more orthodox) from doing the things that would have been right to correct any problems at a local level and to communicate with Rome. The various bishops’ committees on child abuse were less a way of solving the problem than a way of preventing Rome from having any effect and making any changes (particularly anything that would clean up the problem with gays, which is something Ratzinger did work on and which has earned him the hatred of the gay lobbies and the NY Times).

Disobedient bishops have always been a problem and they have always been very difficult to remove, in part because they are not just functionaries, the way a Protestant bishop might be, but have a function in the sacraments and the theological life of the church. Priests, for example, are essentially just the delegates of the bishop, who imparts his sacramental powers to them.

As for the Times, they hate BXVI because he has always been on their hit list. They liked JPII, partly because he was a lot more liberal than Ratzinger, and partly precisely because he was a very lax and weak administrator. Many of the truly awful things happened when Paul VI was Pope, but the 80’s (JPII) weren’t great, either. On his behalf, however, I will say that JPII did seem to have the intention of reforming things, but after the assassination attempt, he seemed to lose his direction (possibly because of his health problems as a result of his injuries) and I think it was really only the increasing influence of Ratzinger that prevented even more chaos.


23 posted on 07/02/2010 5:45:35 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
Since you posted a few quotes:

Cardinal Ratzinger eliminated national bishops’ conferences, several of which, independent of Rome, had begun confronting the sexual abuse crisis and devising policies to address it in their countries.

When? How? It wasn't his area to do and as far as I know the bishops' conferences are all intact and quite frankly they can agree on things, but the conferences have no legal power within the chruch. The USCCB passed all the documentation in 1984 and, as each bishop has to deal with his own diocese, some dioceses got cleaned up and some didn't. Mine actually did. So this statement is iffy at best.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, but for the two decades Ratzinger was in charge of that office her never asserted that authority.

No source of documentation? It's my understanding that the authority, until 2001, was with the Congregation of Clergy unless the case involved the confessional and with the seal involved, it went to Doctrine of the Faith. For whatever reason, that was changed.

Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome.

??????? My archbishop sent priests to prison in those years and had no problem laicizing. This is a cop out if some bishop actually suggested it, say one of the media darlings that actually was relieved of command early.

This is the New York Times. When it comes to Catholicism, I wouldn't believe a word printed. Honestly, it looks like this is meant to stir up trouble. It's the July blinker on a much larger PR campaign. And having a degree in communications, it's not hard to see the pattern.

24 posted on 07/02/2010 5:45:49 AM PDT by Desdemona (One Havanese is never enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I believe the article gives Ratzinger more credit than his predecessor when it comes to the handling of abuse.

The issue is not so much with Ratzinger but the complex and confusing bureaucracy and associated laws in which the cases were handled or not handled.

With regard to shifting blame to the Vatican, isn’t that where church laws and policies are created and approved?

The American Bishops proposed norms which were initially rejected by the Vatican as an example.


25 posted on 07/02/2010 5:48:41 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

You wrote:

“I believe the article gives Ratzinger more credit than his predecessor when it comes to the handling of abuse.”

It should.

“The issue is not so much with Ratzinger but the complex and confusing bureaucracy and associated laws in which the cases were handled or not handled.”

How exactly is taht an issue? The scandal broke in 2002. Only now the Times is printing an article like this? Do you se how you are being played here? The Times will come up with a different slant every few months to try and find an excuse as to why they should keep the drumbeat going against the Church which you and they hate so much.

“With regard to shifting blame to the Vatican, isn’t that where church laws and policies are created and approved?”

Is it where the abuse happened? No, it isn’t. So far we have seen the following: priests were blamed, bishops were blamed, celibacy was blamed, patriarchy was blamed, the old pope was blamed, the new pope was blamed, the Vatican was blamed, cardinals were blamed, bishops’ conferences were blamed, and on occasion even the laity were blamed. The simple fact is that the liberals out there - and their anti-Catholic helpers - will blame anyone and everyone who is Catholic, Catholic theology, Catholic canon law, Catholic practices, etc. until everything and everyone Catholic is some how tainted in the view of the public. And you’re playing right along with it.

“The American Bishops proposed norms which were initially rejected by the Vatican as an example.”

So what? Again, that means nothing in itself. The American bishops could have simply done their job and this would never have happened.


26 posted on 07/02/2010 5:56:00 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: livius

Thank you for your enlightening and courteous reply.

To an outside observer, it appears the Catholic church is an organized yet disorganized institution. The church maintains strict Canon law and contains a formal leadership structure however Bishops retain extreme autonomy with little concern for redress from the Pope.

For example, I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.

It would appear that this organized/disorganized system opens the church to tremendous liability.

Perhaps the answer is to give the Pope more power or completely disorganize?


27 posted on 07/02/2010 5:57:22 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
I encourage my Catholic FReeper friends to read the article, I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.

Ah yes, the New York Times is so even-handed in general to begin with, of course.

It's even fairer to institutions that all of its employees despise.

It's interesting that a self-styled conservative would point to the umpteenth NYT hatchet job on the Pope as "even-handed."

28 posted on 07/02/2010 5:58:50 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

You wrote:

“For example, I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.”

(sigh) Law WAS REMOVED. He is no longer the head of a diocese. As far as I know he heads nothing else of importance either. Mahoney will be out in a few months. And quite frankly no one should listen to what you wnat anyway.


29 posted on 07/02/2010 6:00:11 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It's interesting that a self-styled conservative would point to the umpteenth NYT hatchet job on the Pope as "even-handed."

Did you read the article and can you tell me what is factually incorrect? The focus is on the failure of the church to execute its laws not specifically on the Pope though he did play a part in the failure.
30 posted on 07/02/2010 6:01:32 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
(sigh) Law WAS REMOVED. He is no longer the head of a diocese. As far as I know he heads nothing else of importance either. Mahoney will be out in a few months. And quite frankly no one should listen to what you wnat anyway.

Removed means gone, not in a few months, not in a ceremonial position, but gone. Neither have been removed.

I will ask you one last time to stop making this personal. I have been very courteous in my replies to you and others and would ask that you do the same.
31 posted on 07/02/2010 6:04:58 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
To an outside observer, it appears the Catholic church is an organized yet disorganized institution.

Mmmmm, yes and no. It's more like a gigantic family that has some pretty severe disfunctional tendedcies.

I’ve been calling for the removal of Cardinals Law and Mahony yet it appears it simply isn’t possible.

I've lost track of Law, unless he's still the rector at St. Mary Major. Mahoney is being pushed out early. For a sitting cardinal to get a coadjutor before 80, let alone have his resignation at 75 accepted (see Egan in New York, although he was 77), indicates displeasure from Rome. Mahoney turns 75 in February and he is gone. His replacement is already there and he has a massive mess to clean up.

32 posted on 07/02/2010 6:07:01 AM PDT by Desdemona (One Havanese is never enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

If you’re going to be that picky about Law, you might add Weakland, Hubbard, Pilarcyk, Trautman and a few others to the list. They’re still around making nuisances of themselves. Not to mention the ghost of one Cardinal Bernardin, the worst of the lot, who’s influence and reach are still being felt 14 years after his death.


33 posted on 07/02/2010 6:11:50 AM PDT by Desdemona (One Havanese is never enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

34 posted on 07/02/2010 6:12:52 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I trust NYT coverage on any religion matters as much as I trust their coverage of the Tea Party movement.


35 posted on 07/02/2010 6:23:33 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
Did you read the article and can you tell me what is factually incorrect?

An observer of the NYT would know that their specialty is not in making up "facts" but in selectively reporting certain facts, editing out others, and using this carefully edited approach to twist the story toward their favored interpretation.

Here is a key example of this technique, from the article:

"The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm. But for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere."

It is factually true that the predecessor congregation to the CDF, the Holy Office, was given this authority in 1922.

What the article fails to mention is that in 1967, in the wake of the Sercond Vatican Council, the various congregations of the Roman Curia were radically restructured: some disappeared, some were merged, some were created, some were given new responsibilities and some had responsibilities taken away.

One pre-Vatican II congregation - the Congregation of the Council, was transformed into the Congregation for the Clergy and was assigned the responsibility of the discipline of the clergy.

So from 1922-1967 the predecessor to the CDF was responsible for such cases. From 1967-2001 the CftC was the responsible entity and then, after Pope John Paul II specifically transferred these responsibilities to the CDF with an official motu proprio (namely Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela) in 2001, it was the CDF from 2001 until now.

The NYT conveniently leaves these facts out of their abbreviated timeline, preferring to imply that from 1981-2001 the current Pope was responsible for this discipline and did nothing.

36 posted on 07/02/2010 6:27:56 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

You wrote:

“Removed means gone, not in a few months, not in a ceremonial position, but gone. Neither have been removed.”

Nope. Removed means no longer in the position he once had. He was removed from the position. Mahoney will be too. Sorry, we don’t follow your made up phony definitions.

“I will ask you one last time to stop making this personal.”

I never made it personal. Pointing out that there is no such thing as “cannon law” is not making it personal. Stop make false accusations.

“I have been very courteous in my replies to you and others and would ask that you do the same.”

I will merely keep pointing out the truth. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem not me.


37 posted on 07/02/2010 6:32:59 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
I'd also like to point out that the NYT deliberately frames each article for maximum psychological effect.

The photograph that leads this article is carefully chosen: a black and white photo of Cardinal Ratzinger walking in review of a bunch of German guys at attention wearing identical uniforms.

There are any number of photos of the Cardinal from that time period that are in full color, with him sitting down and smilingly conversing with students and parishioners, etc.

The NYT staff clearly combed the archives looking for a photo that would subconsciously evoke a Nazi era feel - black and white photography, obviously German setting, rows of men in identical costume standing at attention, etc.

38 posted on 07/02/2010 6:39:45 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Given the NY Times historic anti-Catholic bigotry I have difficulty looking at any essay on the Church as serious commentary. Albeit dressed in an the clothing of analysis of the sex abuse scandal this is another hit-piece on the Pope. The Times could show its bonafides if it discussed the real nature of the scandal. It’s not about pedophilia but ephebophilia largely of a homosexual nature. Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The Times won’t touch that because it would interfere with their orthodox PC credentials.


39 posted on 07/02/2010 6:39:56 AM PDT by Rampolla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt; Religion Moderator

Of course it contains facts.

The problem is that its thesis (that Ratzinger/Benedict is culpable) is not supported by the facts cited.

It’s a trash article.

And anyone with any dose of objective critical analysis skills could see that at first reading.

Had enough of them (de)merits yet?


40 posted on 07/02/2010 6:42:48 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Imagine their frustration, they are trying to fight God and they’re furious because they are losing.

“Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. {1 Jn 4:4-6 RSV}”

God will not be defeated nor will the followers of God. A few obsessed freepers and a few newspapers and magazines in cahoots with satan are no match for God...pity them, pray for them.


41 posted on 07/02/2010 6:45:13 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

This graph, derived from the John Jay report, is incomplete as it only covers abuse in America for a specific period ending in 2002 and does not include recently discovered cases such as Lawrence Murphy, 200 deaf boys, etc..

Most of these incidents were reported in the 1990s and 2000s, years after they took place. This raises the question of whether the low numbers for the 1950s reflect a real difference between the rate of abuse in the Eisenhower era and the rate in the decades that followed, or whether it’s just that fewer of the victims from the ’50s have come forward with their stories, because of advanced age, greater shame, etc.

Sorry but the graph is bogus.


42 posted on 07/02/2010 6:55:45 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

This is a Liberal problem and the NYTs is doing some work for the ACLU. I’d safely say that moe than 90% of the troublemakers were liberals, like one priest I know who pretended to be a traditional priest. He’s out of the jail now and has no reason to hide. He’s very much a stereotypical homosexual that you might see crowing on these forums about how they think sex abuse isn’t linked to homosexuality.

There are plenty of useful idiots on hand to help out too.


43 posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:03 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tiki
A few obsessed freepers and a few newspapers and magazines in cahoots with satan are no match for God...pity them, pray for them.

Please stay on topic. Are you saying the church has done a great job handling sex abuse?
44 posted on 07/02/2010 6:57:47 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.; MarkBsnr; Titanites; Mad Dawg; Natural Law; trisham

I’ve always been amused by the fact that people who don’t trust the New York Times for ANYTHING ELSE are willing to accept ANYTHING the NYT prints that supports their anti-Catholic agenda.


45 posted on 07/02/2010 6:59:34 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

Have you noticed that anti-Catholic activity seems to peak on Fridays? I wonder if there is conscious symbolism.


46 posted on 07/02/2010 7:07:26 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I am on topic.


47 posted on 07/02/2010 7:09:19 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

And what do you know of the Murphy case?

The Jay report is used by your fellows to prove whatever they wish. Here, for you, it’s bogus; there, it’s used to prove the severity and uniqueness of the abuse.

Soon you’ll see as those you invited will demonstrate.

Sorry, but this “even handed” thread is bogus from the git-go.


48 posted on 07/02/2010 7:11:07 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The New York Times still thinks the homosexual enabling Scandal Cardinal from the Danube is papabile.

That’s how out of touch they are, but they can’t possibly be as out of touch as the useful idiots who take common cause with the ACLU and Progressivists (Marxists) to attack the Church.

I suspect it’s out of a misplaced loyalty for birth control or some other sexual related issue that the Church teaches against.

It continually reminds me of Caine and Abel, Joseph and his brothers, or Esau and Jacob. I’m sure there are other examples as well... One above all springs to mind.


49 posted on 07/02/2010 7:12:30 AM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tiki

Yes, they are frustrated and furious. Pity and prayer are the proper response.

thanks for your post.


50 posted on 07/02/2010 7:13:11 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson