-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today the New York Times dutifully rolled out another front page story suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI was personally responsible for allowing sexual abuse of children in the Church. Among the 4,000 or so words of misleading assertions, unclear references, and dubious timelines about the abuse crisis, the Times’s actual argument that Benedict “failed to act on abuse scandal” is a little hard to discern — and in fact at times it seems that the piece makes a strong case for the opposite view. But nonetheless, this is the conclusion:
But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s to prevent the scandal from metastasizing in country after country, growing to such proportions that it now threatens to consume his own papacy.
The problems with the premises leading to this conclusion are ably illuminated by the liberal Catholic journalist Michael Sean Winters, M.Z. Hemingway at Get Religion, and Phil Lawler (my dad) here. It’s worth highlighting just one out-of-place passage in the Times piece.
The reporters, Laurie Goodstein and David M. Halbfinger, cook up a surprisingly tendentious explanation for why, in their view, Benedict was negligent on the sex abuse problem.
During this period [the period that Benedict was ignoring the abuse scandal, according to the article], the three dozen staff members working for Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were busy pursuing other problems….
The heart of the office, though, was its doctrinal section. Cardinal Ratzinger, a German theologian appointed prefect of the congregation in 1981, aimed his renowned intellectual firepower at what he saw as “a fundamental threat to the faith of the church” - the liberation theology movement sweeping across Latin America.
As Father Gauthé was being prosecuted in Louisiana, 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.
It’s the reporter’s responsibility to accurately describe unfamiliar terms for a broad audience. “Liberation Theology” definitely falls into that category, because the vast majority of people aren’t sure what Liberation Theology is or why Benedict would aim his renowned intellectual fire power at it. But instead of trying to explain the situation, the authors use the description of Ratzinger’s run-in with Liberation Theology as a chance to demonize him.
Do they really believe that Ratzinger disciplined priests for “preaching that the church should work to power the poor and oppressed”?
You wouldn’t know, from Goodstein and Halbfinger’s description, that there are liberation theologists in good standing with the Church and the pope today. Ratzinger cracked down on certain Latin American liberation theologians because they were Marxists, at a time when Marxists were causing a lot of trouble in that part of the world — and by the way they also were heretics by the Church’s standards. He didn’t and doesn’t have a problem with anyone preaching that the church should empower the poor.
Such a biased account could only have crept into the story for one of two reasons: first, the reporters simply might not understand the concepts at play. This is hard to believe, because they are not complicated. Ten minutes on Wikipedia’s Liberation Theology page would do the trick. That leads to the second possibility, which is that they thought they could slip in an unfair characterization of Ratzinger without most people noticing. Unfortunately, if they thought that, they were right.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/02/the-usual-from-the-nyt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Public Nuisances
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sensus Fidei| 7.2.10 @ 2:55PM
Touche, the usual from the Church.
1.Hide behind ostentatious vestments, vices and worldly pursuits
2.Protect and preserve the physical treasures and hierarchial assets above God's Word and people
3. Twist God's Word and Jesus' holy example to fit and suit hierarchial interests and passions
4. Put PGC program on laypeople as a CYA and never in any videos or scenarios actually show or mention the pedophile priests as the abusers
5. Focus on curbing others' God given rights (couple in Brazil couldn't marry since man was a paraplegic) while expanding theirs by canoodling with politicians and presiding in lavish liturgies at their funerals
6. Confuse and confound faithful with endless barrage of Canon Law, encyclicals, dogma, doctrine, catechesis, compendium, directory of catechesis... but downplay the Bible
7. Keep the Holy Sacraments from the faithful as much as possible, aka atrocious annulment process
8. Deny the faithful letters of eligibility while seeking amnesty for illegals so that they will give their time, treasure and talent freely to the Church (good business sense too, ... someone who will lie with one arm will be generous with the other)
9. Consistent and persistent disregard for "customer service" aka compassion above law
(self!) excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride for saving a life that actually could be
10. Pitifully blame the messenger for exposing truth while desperately employing guilt on the faithful for not defending the evils of Mother Church
Sensus Fidei| 7.2.10 @ 3:39PM
Btw, who are the "liberation theologists who are in good standing with the Church and the Pope today?" Along with "the reporter's responsibility to accurately describe unfamiliar terms for a broad audience" shouldn't an example of a surprising assertion be provided?
We can surely rule out the people's St. Oscar Romero since his beatification has been stalled for over 20 years... but beloved JP II's was on a fast track after 5 years.
Nick| 7.2.10 @ 7:42PM
"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." - Pope Pius XI (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 120)
Dixie Pixie| 7.2.10 @ 4:08PM
The new York Times supported “Free Love”, sex without responsibility, homosexuality without restriction as a civil rights issue and the least possible controls on loose sexual behavior.
Naturally the editors, staff, managers and financial backers nor the collective body of the New York Times will take responsibly for their agitprop. The NYT as a probable cause of the troubles in the Roman Catholic Church is far more creditable than the Pope.
Of course the NYT would like to deflect their responsibility to some one else.
Unfortunately smearing the Pope sells newspapers in New York.
Nate| 7.2.10 @ 4:37PM
Yes. Because of course anti-Catholic bigotry is unheard of down south in Dixie. Oh, no. It's them New Yorkers who really hate Catholics.
Dixie Pixie| 7.2.10 @ 4:56PM
Greetings Nate
Anti-Catholic bigotry not my point.
I would not put up with it anyway.
The point is the NYT slander of the Holy Father.
Given the choice between believing the NYT and the Pope, I believe the Pope.
Do you?
Janet | 7.2.10 @ 9:25PM
Dixie,
In answer to your last question...
Yes. Resoundingly.
Nate| 7.2.10 @ 10:53PM
Yes I believe the Pope. But I also believe in New York, because it's the greatest city in the world -- outside, perhaps, Rome.
martin j smith| 7.3.10 @ 8:26AM
My comment is about the NYT. I stopped reading that rag about 10-15 years ago. The reason, I got tired to reading the same propaganda for new day after day and oppinion for news. Enough of that paper. So, why should anyone be surprised about coverage of any issue of any significance. Besides that I hear about the NYT often enough anyway in bogs because everyone is "shocked" about their coverage. Now I say, par for the course good to know but good to not be reading that paper. Now that is torture.
Michael McManus| 7.3.10 @ 1:45PM
Why do catholic parents tell their children, That it is ok to allow children to be raped ????????
SarahTXs2| 7.3.10 @ 2:24PM
I don't know, in the matter of the NYT vs. the Vatican, I'll take the NYT. I don't think they got in it to lose. I think it was the 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin that threw it all into overdrive. It was such a despicable story. And, honestly, the NYT could print a new story every day for the next three years or so if they wanted to. So I would say the Vatican needs to back off and work on their sovereign immunity theories instead.
PCC| 7.4.10 @ 4:02AM
My suggestion is that the leadership of the Church publicly acknowledge to the entire Catholic community its responsibility for the Church's decades-long practice of recruiting perverts and homosexuals as priests (as priests!) and the systematic protection of, and covering up for, these criminal deviants once their depraved acts against children (against innocent children!) were discovered.
I further suggest that the Church then immediately laicize every single priest they believe to have committed such acts, and take concrete steps to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that monsters such as these never again join the priesthood or get near children ever again.
I think that would be good for a start.
Kipling| 7.4.10 @ 8:53AM
PCC, your post makes me curious, so I want to ask you why you say that the Catholic Church recruited "perverts and homosexuals" for decades. Is there evidence of this? I am a lapsed Catholic myself, but one who is still largely sympathetic to the Church. I don't deny that there have been some homosexual priests in the Church or some pedophiles, and probably there still are. (I suspect there is some overlap between these two categories, but I am inclined to doubt that they are coextensive.) I don't pretend to have any expertise or special insight as to why homosexuals and pedophiles end up in the priesthood, but I suppose I have always assumed that it happened "by accident," so to speak, or through self-selection. It certainly never occurred to me that the Church was actively recruiting them.
Nick| 7.4.10 @ 1:31PM
Yes, PCC, where is your evidence that the "leadership of the Church" was in the "practice of recruiting perverts and homosexuals as priests?"
Homos infiltrated the Church, covertly, as Satan's little helpers. They then took over seminaries across the country, along with their liberation theology comrades.
The bishops biggest mistake were listening to the psychiatrists who said these perverted criminals could be cured. Bishops that followed the teachings of the Church didn't have a problem with the lavender mafia.
PCC| 7.4.10 @ 4:27PM
Dear Kipling & Nick,
Firstly, I'm not looking for an argument. It's just my opinion.
Secondly, maybe we're a little stuck on the word "recruit". My various dictionaries define it as "to enlist", "to increase or mantain the number of", "to secure the services of", and so on.
I'm satisfied that it is self-evident that those are accurate characterizations of what has been going on in the Catholic Church since the 1960s. Perhaps you disagree.
Whether the "infiltration" of the seminaries by homosexuals was "covert" or otherwise, I reiterate my view that the leadership of the Church should accept responsibility for having allowed it to happen, and the Church should atone publicly for all the horrible crimes against innocent children that flowed from it.
martin j smith| 7.5.10 @ 8:27AM
There has been abuse by some in the Catholic church there is doubt. But, if you are going to go after the "bad" in relgion what about also covering "honor killings " or sexual mutilation or other "traditions" that are aspects of various cultures or religious groups.. Oh, and lets not forget stoning or beheading. ? The issue is not necessarily the validy of the Catholic Vatican matters, but as they say in the NYT, all the news thats fit to print--and who decides that and on what basis ? Let me be blunt...The NYT Hates Christains and Jews ( I mean the people responsible for the paper itself and the stuff in it. But, they love Muslims and Islam.. Oh, BTW Muslims do not perpetrate terrorism.
Sensus Fidei| 7.5.10 @ 10:50AM
Still awaiting a factual update on the ""liberation theologists who are in good standing with the Church and the Pope today." Maybe the answer is in limbo?
Sorry to read there are still some deniers aboard here, but thankfully this isolated, alarming thinking of a few is not indicative of the sentiments of those in the middle of the pew.
ooj| 7.7.10 @ 5:54AM
When I was in high school I found a book at the library called "a history of sex". The author mentioned that she had seen a vatican document from the middle ages where the pope decreed that the priests give up boys for lent. Nothing has changed.
Indy| 7.7.10 @ 3:12PM
No to say it is not true, but a) who is this author, b) was this mention properly documented? Like I say, not trying to say it is not true, but I know there is a lot of "information" purported to be factual that has little to no factual basis.