Posted on 07/02/2010 4:21:11 AM PDT by TSgt
Did you read the entire article? The NYT spoke with Catholic priests/cardinals who stated even they had trouble communicating with the Vatican in attempts to resolve differing issues, includidng the sexual abuse stuff.
That’s fine. To not address the decrease in istances of abuse in the USA before it became public, and to give the opposite impression, isn’t “even handed”, though is it?
“Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.”
Is that an even handed statement?
Freegards
INCREDIBLE.
Will the REAL Christians in the RC camp stand up and denounce such a thing unequivocably?
[not holding my breath.]
He's an effective bureaucrat, as as a disciple of Christ, he fails.
Nearly one billion dollars paid out on ONE DAY in 2006 and ONE DAY in 2007 by the RCC to redress multiple sexual crimes of criminal priests in ONE CITY, Los Angeles.
The article further stated that the Pope hasn’t it made it a requirement to contact civil authorities when abuse is suspected.
And when left up to the bishops some didn’t even report crap to the vatican.
No wonder why things are such a mess.
The qualification is fine with me.
It does voice one’s own opinion vs reading someone else’s mind.
Evidently some of the Rabid Clique RC’s are clueless about historical accuracy.
Evidently some of the Rabid Clique RC’s and many of the regular ones have little understanding of blasphemy and idolatry—particularly as it applies to Mary and their worshipped Institution.
Perhaps Alex would be willing to keep track of all the RC’s on FR who stand unequivocably on the side of calling such a state of affairs horribly UnChristian and thoroughly reprehensible.
I suspect it will be a short list.
It’d be enough to cause me to walk away in disbelief that the Catholic Church is in fact “the one true church.”
But hey that would be my personal opinion.
Now if only the NYT would show the same evan handedness in an in depth report of the fallen angel alien UFO cattle mutilators.
We’d have a way to measure FR posters credulity.
INDEED.
THE NEW YORK SLIMES
HAS BEEN A HEAVILY CONTROLLED MOUTHPIECE
of the globalist oligarchy from it’s founding.
What a surprise. NOT.
Now that's just odd. Why would they bother the Vatican with their troubles? Each diocese is a different entity that operates with relative autonomy and makes their own decisions about the hiring and firing of personnel.. They're supposed to be operating on their own! Why are they acting like college kids calling Mom and Dad for emergency money?
Except for this report of course. It's accurate and "even handed."
I think we can depend on the Slimes to take the party line about UFO’s when the oligarchy and the critters decide to out that phenomena in behalf of coercing, scaring, forcing the world’s populace into the global government.
For the children, of course.
And the snail darter.
etc.
/s
I’m increasingly underwhelmed at the FREEPERS who think that
waddling around with their heads in dark places
is a great dance for conservatives who want to survive and help this great land.
By their own words they stand condemned. lol.
An excess of farce strikes again!
LOL.
Yes, farce is a good description.
But since when are slanderous opinions against an individual, named FReeper not considered "making it personal?" That is also against the rules.
Using the catch-all word "evidently" before a personal assault does not make it any less of a personal assault. It gives an opinion, just like saying...
"I think you're a rapist" gives an opinion, but one which we are cautioned not to repeat on the religion forum because it is "making it personal."
We haven't been given free rein on the forum to voice our opinions if they are "personally assaultive of another FReeper by name. Or else I could say, "It is my opinion that so-and-so is a lunatic and a felon."
That's not permitted. In fact, using "evidently" is even worse because it declares there is evidence to back up the personal slander.
Evidently, so-and-so is a murderer. Evidently, so-and-so eats children for breakfast. Evidently, so-and-so is insane.
This kind of strange leeway isn't going to work.
From What Does the Prayer Really Say:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/07/the-key-purposeful-error-in-the-nytimes-new-attack-on-pope-benedict/
*****
The real problem is that [the New York Times] absolutely get[s] wrong the 1962 document Crimen sollicitationis.
And because the editors of Hell’s bible [= NYT] aren’t stupid, they are getting it wrong on purpose.
* Here is the link to Crimen sollicitationis on the Vatican website.
* CBS News has a pdf of the document itself.
Two points.
1) As is clear from Crimen sollicitationis 1-2, the jurisdiction of the then Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (SSCSO, the name of the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF until 1965), only covered solicitation in the context of confession/internal forum, and not other delicts. That is why there are relatively few cases handled at the SSCSO and CDF until the whole system was overhauled.
2) The jurisdiction of the SSCSO/CDF was not immediate. The first instance or immediate jurisdiction remained in the diocese. The SSCSO would only have called a case to Rome if their were some compelling reason, for example, depending on whether the Holy Office even knew about it, or if the diocese couldn’t deal with it. The dioceses had immediate jurisdiction.
I suppose you could object that Rome should have wanted to deal with every case. Consider that back then is not right now. Tools of communication are very different now. Given the reasonable principle of subsidiarity, there was great reason to leave the cases in the dioceses. As the situation, and communications, changed, Rome could get more directly involved and informed. But, until the Church’s procedures were changed, that was how they handled things.
These points are crucial, for on them rests the mantra that “all along Ratzinger and the CDF did nothing”.
**********
File under “Demerits of the Evenhanded Article” or, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf puts it, “The Purposeful Error in the NYTimes Attack on Pope Benedict”
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.