Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva

BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 23/08/2021 11:16
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
11/04/2010 19:48
OFFLINE
Post: 19.902
Post: 2.543
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Veteran



CNA has done a story on a Giuliano Ferrrara editorial I was meaning to translate... Although his conclusion is evident to all of us who have been following media reporting on Benedict XVI and the Church, it is probably the first time that a mainstream newspaper in Italy has directly challenged the ideological bias of the media. Ferrara has long been one of Italy's so-called 'devout atheists' who have consistently supported the Church and the Pope in their moral and ethical positions. He led a slate of parliamentary candidates in last year's national elections that based their campaign on being againt abortion and progressive legislation in favor of euthanasia and same-sex 'marriage'.


Ideology trumping information
in media coverage of the Church,
Italian editor charges




Rome, Italy, Apr 10, 2010 (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic Church is "not a modern republic", pointed out Giuliano Ferrara, editor of the political Italian daily Il Foglio, in an editorial on Friday.

He argued that the conflict in the media today between offering information and promoting a secular ideology — with ideology winning out — is behind the coverage of the sex abuse scandals.

Commenting on the "steady drip" of accusations against the Pope that continue to question his disciplinary response to sexual abuse of minors by priests, the editor of Il Foglio wrote Friday that it must be noted that the Catholic Church is not a "modern republic, founded on statute law, on penal action, (or) on the control or repression of criminal offenses."

"The Church occupies itself with sin, that is a more complex thing than the crime, that doesn't lend itself to being classified in the same way, that has an aspect of individual judgment, case by case, different from equal, homologous, standard procedures of law," he explained.

"Its inhabitants are souls, not citizens," Ferrara wrote, suggesting that the Church also couldn't be considered an "open society."

On the difference between civil and Church law, Ferrara pointed out that the Church exercises canonical rules, providing "mechanisms of surveillance" which operate in (the area of) the profound, dig into the conscience, (and) refer to a human and divine area," he wrote.

But, he added thatespecially in regard to priests, canon law "manages a sacramental ministry that necessarily transcends the ordinary rules with which cases of crimes are dealt with in civil courts, whose authority the Church recognizes. If this datum is not understood and recognized, with a tolerant and secular spirit, the accusations against the Church become ideological intolerance," he warned.

The Pope has no problem, declared Ferrara, in "serenely" recognizing his responsibility, as did other Church governing authorities in the last half-century, for providing "cautious and merciful treatment ... of the complex psychopathologies linked to homophilic and pedophilic sexuality" of some members of the clergy.

At the same time, though, "Benedict XVI must be acknowledged to have instituted a new sensibility around this difficult, critical theme, and of having done as much as was possible to exercise ... a very rigorous pastoral, but also canonical and moral, responsibility."

Concluding his piece, Ferrara cited a Thursday op-ed published in the Jerusalem Post by the former New York mayor, Ed Koch, a practicing Jew. [Posted on Page 87 of this thread last April 8.]

Koch, wrote Ferrara, had written that the manner whereby the international media has gone about addressing the matter of pedophilic priests shows that they are more interested in punishing the Church for its positions on matters that secular society considers "a threat to its own ideological identity" than in informing the people of the facts.

Ferrara agreed: "I couldn't have said it better."





NB: Sandro Magister has seen fit to feature Fr. Lombardi's April 9 editorial for Vatican Radio (translated and posted on the same day at the top of the preceding page of this thread) in his quadrilingual service www.chiesa, introducing it with these words:

The editorial read by the Pope's spokesman on Vatican Radio on April 9. The most important official pronouncement on pedophilia after Benedict XVI's letter to the Catholics of Ireland


I am glad for this, because the editorial sort of got lost in the reporting because on that same day, AP came out with its supposed 'exclusive'. Whereas it had started my day on a burst of enthusiasm because Fr. Lombardi had articulated a complex issue very effectively in a way I had not seen the editor at OR do!

In fairness to L'Osservatore Romano, which I have said has been rather spotty in following this 'scandal' through, it published Father Lombardi's editorial as an article in the 3/10/10 issue, but not on Page 1! Equally, the OR has not seen fit to archive it in its online file of 'worthy' comments, interviews and cultural pieces!

I almost feel I should start a separate file (offline) to keep track of my personal observations about the questionable editorial judgments since Mr. Vian took over as editor of the OR. It seems he is paying more attention to making the OR 'prove' it is 'hip' by such exercises as juxtaposing its coverage of the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' break up, for heaven's sake!, with the story on the opening of the Holy Shroud exposition yesterday!



Here are some excellent reflections by Carl Olson, who is the editor of the excellent Catholic site Ignatius Insight:


The real scandal
and the real story

by CARL OLSON



A fly-by hater sent the following comment regarding Fr. Fessio's explanation of what really happened in the mid-1980s regarding the situation with an abusive priest from the Archdiocese of Oakland and the supposed failure of then-Cardinal Ratzinger to respond swiftly and effectively enough:

Maybe you should stop trying to justify child-rape. Just an idea.

If I thought this was just the half-cracked spitting of an isolated hater, I'd not bother to mention it. But having spent too much time the past couple of weeks reading numerous comments on dozens of sites (news sites, blogs, etc.) attached to stories, reports, and commentary about the ongoing papal saga, I know it isn't isolated or rare.

On the contrary, such comments are common, ordinary, expected. In some cases it is almost as though there is a high dollar contest for the most outrageous, vicious, and grammatically-rotten attack on Benedict XVI.

The "logic" seems simple enough: The Pope has been accused, so he must be guilty. Some Catholics are defending him, so they must be guilty as well, willing to "justify child-rape" to protect their precious, backwards, vile pile of teetering papal power.


Equally bothersome have been comments from some normally reasonable pundits (some of them Catholic) who have said, in essence, "Well, Catholics really shouldn't be upset. They should resist the impulse to respond. After all, the media has done the dirty work of exposing the abuse and cover-ups." [What I have called 'the Peggy Noonan response'. Some Catholic journalists and intellectuals lean over backwards too much in trying to show they are 'objective', when what they are trying to do is simply not to offend the other side, indeed by lighting votive candles to the media 'for doing the Church a favor' and completely ignoring their abandonment of every shred of decency! And I say CRAP to them!]

This is ridiculous.

Let's say my neighbor alerts me to the fact that my teenage son has been committing acts of vandalism and provides proof thereof. Does it give him the right to then, a year later, accuse my wife of being a prostitute when he has no evidence and it's clear he dislikes her?

Or, to get biblical: Babylon and Assyria were used by Yahweh to chastise and humble the wayward Israelites, but I don't recall reading any of the prophets exhorting the people of God to worship the Babylonian gods or swear oaths of complete submission to Assyrian kings. Pass the truth, however painful, but keep the lies.

It's clear to reasonable and sober observers that the attempts to pin dirt on Benedict are failing. Sadly, that doesn't matter to many of those who are scarfing down the now-established narrative of an uncaring, clueless, or even duplicitous Archbishop/Cardinal Ratzinger. The real dirt won't stick, but much of the manufactured dirt is sticking.

It used to be that most reporters worked to break a story, to find the truth, and to shed light on the shadows. But now more and more reporters work to stage a story, to fudge the truth, and to create shadows by obscuring the light.


People are rightly angry that certain priests preyed upon innocent children and that some bishops abused power and broke trust. And, yes, priests and bishops will be held to a higher standard. But it seems readily obvious, especially after the many stories of the past weeks, that some reporters and editors are preying upon prejudices, abusing power, and breaking trust with an impunity that would make those many of those same sick priests and callous bishops rather jealous.

I'm sure many will disagree with such a harsh assessment, but perhaps they need to contemplate more seriously the parallels between molestation and slander, parallels that are real enough regardless of differences in degree and kind. (Most of us, I think, would rather be slandered than sexually violated. I am not at all making light of rape, molestation, or abuse, which are despicable and vile sins.)

Both sexual molestation and public slander are violations of a person's dignity and innocence. Both isolate the victim from good and healthy relationships. Both destroy or seriously harm a person's ability to function properly, to live a full life.

"Far better not be born," wrote Chaucer, "than to be one that people slander and say cheap things about."

But slander has become an incredibly powerful and efficient way to destroy men, undermine institutions, and increase one's political power and public leverage.

"In the old days men had the rack," quipped Oscar Wilde, "Now they have the press."

Which brings me to Phil Lawler's excellent piece for Catholic Culture, "Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope," in which Lawler — a very fine and reputable journalist and editor — writes:

Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.

The New York Times - which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified… the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the Church that has focused on whether the future Pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry.

Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!


No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media.

The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

The real scandal, in other words, is the slander. Just don't expect it see it on the front page of many newspapers.


***********************************

As Jesus said in the great Sermon on the Mount: "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?", which is the best definition of the sanctimonious ideological blindness that afflicts the overwhelming majority of the MSM.



P.S. I notice Father Z late last night posted an April 10 article in the Washington Post belaboring the 'lack of a Vatican communications strategy' and that this 'baffles its US defenders'.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002808...
I came across the article yesterday and decided it adds nothing to what we already know and merely spins the well-known communications ineptitude of the Vatican to rub in the current MSM poison into that wound! Nor does it have anything to say about how the Vatican might improve its communications because the authors are not at all conversant with the basics about the Church, much less about the way they do things at the Vatican. Also, the writers consult a couple of American Catholic journalists who say, in effect, "Why don't they consult us? We're the experts!" Yeah, right!


Here, however, is a more constructive approach to the question of Vatican problems:

Church faces hurdles
to imposing abuse rules

By STACY MEICHTRY



ROME, April 10 — Pope Benedict XVI is under pressure to find a quick and effective way to impose Church law concerning sexual abuse across Roman Catholic dioceses around the world, where he will have to face local bishops who hold sway over how abusive priests are reported, investigated and prosecuted.

Some canon lawyers say the Pope has all of the formal power he needs, partly thanks to tougher laws he helped to create in 2001 when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Still, the Vatican faces numerous challenges in enforcing canon law. In addition to the semi-autonomous dioceses, there are also debates over jurisdiction inside the church, confusing divisions of authority, and widely varying civil codes dealing with requirements for reporting suspected abuse.

On Friday, Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi in an address over Vatican Radio, also told Church officials to cooperate with civil authorities "keeping in mind the specific norms and situations of different countries." Canon law, he said, had to be applied with "decisiveness and veracity."

The Vatican is expected to publish a streamlined "lay guide" to canon norms on sexual-abuse cases on its Web site Monday, said Jeffrey Lena, a lawyer for the Holy See.

One problem the Catholic Church has had in responding to abuse cases is the determination of who has jurisdiction: the Holy See in Rome or local bishops.

As hundreds of sexual-abuse allegations have emerged across Europe this year, critics have noted the glacial pace of church trials and interpreted it as a sign of the Vatican's unwillingness to crack down on sexual abuse.

Further confusion is the church hierarchy of authority. The Pope has the power to hand down directives on Church law, but bishops from Idaho to India have a lot of say in whether Vatican orders are carried out. [What I have always decried as one of the worst unintended effects of Vatican-II - the arrogance of bishops who seem to think Vatican II made each of them equal to the Successor of Peter, completely ignoring repeated statements in Vatican II documents that they should always act 'in communion with the Succesor of Peter"!

"People see the Pope as a monolith; he gives an order and everyone falls in line. But in practice, that doesn't happen," said Nicholas Cafardi, a professor of canon law at Duquesne University, who advised U.S. bishops on implementing national norms on sexual abuse following the explosion of U.S. cases in 2002. "There are tons of examples of bishops ignoring the Holy See."

Two letters involving the case of an Arizona priest show the cleric's diocese and the Vatican pushing one another for faster action.

"Almost two years having passed since our previous letter and not having received, to this day, any response to it, this Congregation feels it is necessary to ask once again that Your Excellency promptly resolve the case of Reverend Teta" - Archbishop Angelo Bovone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Bishop Manuel D. Moreno, of Tuscon, in a letter dated Feb. 1, 1994.

"I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case, because the accused was a priest in whom I had great confidence at one time, but who, unfortunately, worked among our former seminarians, and, terrible to say, evidently corrupted many of them." - Bishop Moreno wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in a letter dated April 28, 1997.

Those examples include administrative matters, such as selling property or managing personnel.

Although bishops continue to have "enormous power," the 2001 law has clarified the Holy See's authority to reach down into a diocese in cases of sexual abuse, said Monica-Elena Herghelegiu, a canon lawyer and senior lecturer at Germany's University of Tubingen, where Pope Benedict once taught theology. "The Supreme Pontiff and its representatives have the power to intervene in the dioceses whenever necessary."

Before the current law, any number of departments in the Holy See could stake claims to sexual-abuse cases. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for example, had clearcut jurisdiction only over priests who used their roles as confessors to solicit sexual acts from their victims.

Other forms of sexual abuse by priests were often handled by other Vatican bodies, such as the Congregation for the Clergy. That also caused months of delay, as local bishops reported the cases to the wrong office, according to internal Church documents disclosed by lawyers of alleged victims.

Controversy over who is ultimately responsible disciplining priests bubbled up again on Friday when the Associated Press reported that a 1985 letter by then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the Oakland, Calif., diocese showed the future Pope resisting defrocking an Oakland priest who had a record of sexually molesting children. In the letter, written in Latin, the cardinal cites concerns over "the good of the universal church," the AP quotes the letter as stating.

Mr. Lena, couldn't confirm the authenticity of the 1985 letter, but said it appeared to be a form letter typically sent out in cases involving "laicization," or defrocking.

He denied the letter reflected then-Cardinal Ratzinger resisting pleas from the bishop to defrock the priest. "There may be some overstep and rush to judgment going on here," he said.

Mr. Lena said no further allegations were reported against the priest between 1981 and 1987, when the Holy See defrocked him.

"During the entire course of the proceeding the priest remained under the control, authority and care of the local bishop who was responsible to make sure he did no harm," Mr. Lena said, adding: "Competence was in the hands of the local bishop."

In the late 1990s, Cardinal Ratzinger began to push for an overhaul of rules on sexual abuse, said Father Lombardi. The effort actually led to further delays in disciplining abusive priests. Cases that were pending before the Congregation were suspended for years while Cardinal Ratzinger retooled the norms, the spokesman said. [I remember Fr. Lombardi making a comment about this but not that he said pending cases were 'suspended for years' as a result. I will check back.]

Cardinal Ratzinger issued a letter to bishops, giving them instructions on how to apply the new rules. Those rules dictate that bishops are required to report swiftly any allegations of sexual abuse that have "a semblance of truth" to the Congregation.

The office can then instruct a local diocese to conduct a canonical trial against the cleric. Under "particular circumstances," the Congregation can take over a case and conduct its own trial.

The Congregation also was given full jurisdiction over appeals. It can dispense with a canonical trial and refer cases directly to the Pope, when abuse cases are deemed "grave and clear."

Despite the overhaul, however, the Vatican still struggles to impose its authority. [ON THE BISHOPS WHO ARE STLL PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING AND IMPOSING DISCIPLINE ON THEIR PRIESTS AS PART OF THEIR PATERNAL DUTIES TOWARDS THEM!]



[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/04/2010 23:36]
Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva
Nuova Discussione
 | 
Rispondi
Cerca nel forum

Feed | Forum | Bacheca | Album | Utenti | Cerca | Login | Registrati | Amministra
Crea forum gratis, gestisci la tua comunità! Iscriviti a FreeForumZone
FreeForumZone [v.6.1] - Leggendo la pagina si accettano regolamento e privacy
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 06:17. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com