A Nope For Pope Ny Times Op-Ed By Maureen Dowd

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='28 March 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1269819662' post='2082260']
If a bishop covers up what has happened, he too should be punished according to the canons. Civil criminal prosecution should also be pursued.
[/quote]
I think it depends on the when the supposed abuse occurred, when it was reported and what the consequences to all involved were. For example, if we are talking about a case that happened in the 70s or 80s and the bishop followed the advice and current practice of leading shrinks how can we fault them? They were told these people needed a new environment and so they literally followed doctors orders, and put them in a different location. Remember these things were not discussed by ANYBODY, so of course it was never publicized. Now the same bishop is accused of a coverup because standards have changed? I don't think so.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='28 March 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1269819662' post='2082260']
I am for punishing those who did wrong, whether we are talking about the perpetrators of the sexual abuse itself, or about those who facilitated them by covering up what happened. Canon law already provides for the removal of priests who break the sixth commandment, and those canons need to be used. If a bishop covers up what has happened, he too should be punished according to the canons. Civil criminal prosecution should also be pursued.
[/quote]

I tried to find those canons the other day, but I'm not very familiar with canon law and how it's organized. I'm not sure how I feel about the self-defense coming from the Vatican about the media attacking Pope Benedict, but like any sensitive subject, reading about it involves balancing between The New York Times and Zenit. Nobody seems capable of impartiality, though I wouldn't mind if Benedict showed a little anger about these sins.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='28 March 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1269820212' post='2082271']
I think it depends on the when the supposed abuse occurred, when it was reported and what the consequences to all involved were. For example, if we are talking about a case that happened in the 70s or 80s and the bishop followed the advice and current practice of leading shrinks how can we fault them? They were told these people needed a new environment and so they literally followed doctors orders, and put them in a different location. Remember these things were not discussed by ANYBODY, so of course it was never publicized. Now the same bishop is accused of a coverup because standards have changed? I don't think so.
[/quote]

Not always. In plenty of cases he psychiatrists warned the Bishops that the Priests were not fit to be returned to pastoral duties, and that advice was ignored. The argument concerning Priestly celibacy isn't that celibacy causes healthy men to become sexual predators, it's that it causes the Priesthood to become a draw for men with abnormal sexual preferences. If they were just some single guy who never married and showed no interest in women, that would make people ask questions. If they become a priest not only does nobody dig into why they haven't settled down with some nice Catholic girl, but they get widespread social respect as well.

And yeah, Dowd is often a twit. Nothing new.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='28 March 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1269820575' post='2082272']
I tried to find those canons the other day, but I'm not very familiar with canon law and how it's organized. . . .
[/quote]
It is in the section of the CIC entitled [i]Sanctions in the Church[/i] (See canons 1387, 1395 §1 and §2).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='28 March 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1269821076' post='2082279']
It is in the section of the CIC entitled [i]Sanctions in the Church[/i] (See canons 1387, 1395 §1 and §2).
[/quote]

Hmm... I don't see anything about subjection to civil authority and punishment. Is it implied?

[mortify]

Tragic news, but does anyone think it's only a coincidence that it's being reported now?

[let_go_let_God]

I live right next to the Diocese where the latest "scandel" is taking place. The thing that a lot of people are blowing out of proportion is that when Pope Benedict recieved the letter, the accused priest had died two days prior to the reception of the letter. At that point there was nothing that he could have done for that priest.

God bless-
LGLG

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' date='30 March 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1269965920' post='2083364']
Tragic news, but does anyone think it's only a coincidence that it's being reported now?
[/quote]

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. The real victims are the ones who were abused. Pope Benedict is a grown up who should be able to handle the media just fine. Stealing the innocence of a child is a grave offense for which the media is rightly calling the Church to account.

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='30 March 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1269973964' post='2083453']
I may be wrong, but I don't think so. The real victims are the ones who were abused.[/quote]

No one is diminishing the horrific acts done to these people let alone denying they are victims.

[quote]Pope Benedict is a grown up who should be able to handle the media just fine.[/quote]

This is the type of naivete I find concerning. The incident is over a letter written to the CDF in 1996 over [i]guidance[/i] in conducting a canonical tribunal. For whatever reason, Cardinal Ratzinger didn't respond, and for this the Media is making him partially responsible for crimes committed on another continent and dating back to the 60's. If you don't think such spin will harm the Church, scandalize innumerable Catholics, and further weaken trust in the Vicar and Magisterium, you are sadly mistaken. I find it hard to believe that an event dating back to the late 90's should suddenly rear its head around the first day of the most sacred week of the Christian calendar. The fact that secondary articles addressing it are calling to quench Catholic protest against abortion, encourage ordination of priestesses, and remove clerical celibacy, makes it appear all the more strategic.

[quote]Stealing the innocence of a child is a grave offense for which the media is rightly calling the Church to account.
[/quote]

I mention this not to diminish the nature of the crimes but only to prevent a distortion of what occurred. The New York Times online version of the article has links to primary documents involved in the case, among them is a psychologists review of the accused priest. In the notes are mentioned that the victims are male, post pubescent, and between the ages of [b]15-22[/b] (one victim was 11.) We're not dealing with pedophilia here, but with homosexual pederasty.

Edited March 30, 2010 by mortify

[Veridicus]

[quote name='mortify' date='30 March 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1269977400' post='2083498']
This is the type of naivete I find concerning. The incident is over a letter written to the CDF in 1996 over [i]guidance[/i] in conducting a canonical tribunal. For whatever reason, Cardinal Ratzinger didn't respond, and for this the Media is making him partially responsible for crimes committed on another continent and dating back to the 60's. If you don't think such spin will harm the Church, scandalize innumerable Catholics, and further weaken trust in the Vicar and Magisterium, you are sadly mistaken. I find it hard to believe that an event dating back to the late 90's should suddenly rear its head around the first day of the most sacred week of the Christian calendar. The fact that secondary articles addressing it are calling to quench Catholic protest against abortion, encourage ordination of priestesses, and remove clerical celibacy, makes it appear all the more strategic.
[/quote]

I agree with this sentiment. And in fact, I've noticed NPR has given 5min of talk time with interviews and such to this topic most days of the week for the last couple of weeks. And they were interviewing the leader of the Irish version of the National Catholic Reporter who basically said "until the Church addresses the legitimate role of women in the Church, homosexuality, and addresses the real sexual mores of the world today she will continue to deal with these kinds of problems."

So yeah, you are pretty much spot on what is actually happening.

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

I don't normally read this newspaper, so I appreciate the link. What a solution!

Pax,
TradMom

[Ash Wednesday]

Stopped reading at "Maureen Dowd".

[mortify]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='30 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1269978093' post='2083502']
I agree with this sentiment. And in fact, I've noticed NPR has given 5min of talk time with interviews and such to this topic most days of the week for the last couple of weeks. And they were interviewing the leader of the Irish version of the National Catholic Reporter who basically said "until the Church addresses the legitimate role of women in the Church, homosexuality, and addresses the real sexual mores of the world today she will continue to deal with these kinds of problems."

So yeah, you are pretty much spot on what is actually happening.
[/quote]

This [url="http://lewiscrusade.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/conspiracy-of-hypocrites-more-facts-on-pope-benedict-xvi/"][b][u]article[/u][/b][/url] posts a link to a radio discussion where Catholic journalist and author George Weigel appears on. He says the essential motive is to portray the Catholic Church as a "criminal conspiracy of sex abusers." He describes the NY Times piece as a "reprehensible piece of journalism" mainly because of the sources used and distortion of facts.

One was the discredited and thoroughly disgraced Arhbishop Weakland, who upon retirement was found to have paid off his homosexual lover some $450,000 of diocese money to keep quiet. I think he is partially to blame for this coming out now since he mentioned the events in his memoirs published a year ago (one wonders why he decided to bring it up again then.) The second source, the lawyer Jeffrey Anderson has, according to Weigel, a "direct financial stake in the cases of Milwaukee."

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='30 March 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1269973964' post='2083453']
I may be wrong, but I don't think so. The real victims are the ones who were abused. Pope Benedict is a grown up who should be able to handle the media just fine. Stealing the innocence of a child is a grave offense for which the media is rightly calling the Church to account.
[/quote]
However, false accusations, such as saying the Pope deliberately protected sexual predators, is not "rightly" anything.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' date='30 March 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1269977400' post='2083498']
This is the type of naivete I find concerning. The incident is over a letter written to the CDF in 1996 over [i]guidance[/i] in conducting a canonical tribunal. For whatever reason, Cardinal Ratzinger didn't respond, and for this the Media is making him partially responsible for crimes committed on another continent and dating back to the 60's. If you don't think such spin will harm the Church, scandalize innumerable Catholics, and further weaken trust in the Vicar and Magisterium, you are sadly mistaken. I find it hard to believe that an event dating back to the late 90's should suddenly rear its head around the first day of the most sacred week of the Christian calendar. The fact that secondary articles addressing it are calling to quench Catholic protest against abortion, encourage ordination of priestesses, and remove clerical celibacy, makes it appear all the more strategic. [/quote]

There are quite a few incidences, but I don't think it's the past that is an issue so much as the lack of a personal response from Pope Benedict. All we hear are legal reasons why the pope is untouchable for these cases. The Vatican's legal team is handling this like he's a CEO in need of PR management instead of a pastor demanding justice. Seems to me they would be better off simply ignoring the attacks and focus on justice for the abuse victims.


It's not just the media... there's a case filed right here in Louisville going after the pope directly: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_re_eu/eu_the_vatican_s_defense

I have a bad feeling that using the "head of state" defense is going to turn public opinion against the priviledge Vatican City enjoys as a sovereign nation.