A remarkable piece in the Jerusalem Post by the Jewish former Mayor of New York! Unlike most of his fellow liberals, his ideology has not obliterated his common sense. Even more remarkable is that he quotes Jesus to make his point.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
'He that is without sin,
let him cast the next stone'
April 8, 2001
I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate.
The sexual molestation of children, principally boys, is horrendous. This is agreed to by everyone, Catholics, the Church itself, as well as non-Catholics and the media.
The Pope has on a number of occasions on behalf of the Church admitted fault and asked for forgiveness. For example,
The New York Times reported on April 18, 2008, that the Pope "came face to face with a scandal that has left lasting wounds on the American Church Thursday, holding a surprise meeting with several victims of sexual abuse by priests in the Boston area.... 'No words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse,' the Pope said in his homily. 'It is important that those who have suffered be given loving pastoral attention.'"
On March 20, 2010, the Times reported that in his eight page pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, the pope wrote, "You have suffered grievously, and I am truly sorry ... Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated."
The Pope also "criticized Ireland's bishops for 'grave errors of judgment and failures of leadership.'"
The primary explanation for the abuse that happened - not to excuse the retention of priests in positions that enabled them to continue to harm children - was the belief that the priests could be cured by psychotherapy, a theory now long discarded by the medical profession.
Regrettably, it is also likely that years ago the abuse of children was not taken as seriously as today. Thank God we've progressed on that issue.
Many of those in the media who are pounding on the Church and the Pope today clearly do it with delight, and some with malice.
The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce.
My good friend, [the late] John Cardinal O'Connor, once said, "The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you."
The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally.
I disagree with the Church on all of these positions. Nevertheless, it has a right to hold these views in accordance with its religious beliefs.
I disagree with many tenets of Orthodox Judaism - the religion of my birth - and have chosen to follow the tenets of Conservative Judaism, while I attend an Orthodox synagogue. Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil. Moreover, the existence of one billion, 130 million Catholics worldwide is important to the peace and prosperity of the planet.
Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation, but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the
New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed.
I am appalled that, according to the Times of April 6, 2010, "Last week, the center-left daily newspaper
La Repubblica wrote, without attribution that 'certain Catholic circles' believed the criticism of the Church stemmed from 'a New York Jewish lobby.'"
The Pope should know that some of his fellow priests can be thoughtless or worse in their efforts to help him. If the "certain Catholic circles" were referring to the
Times, the Pope should know that the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is Episcopalian, having taken the religion of his mother, and its executive editor, Bill Keller, is also a Christian.
Enough is enough. Yes, terrible acts were committed by members of the Catholic clergy. The Church has paid billions to victims in the US and will pay millions, perhaps billions, more to other such victims around the world. It is trying desperately to atone for its past by its admissions and changes in procedures for dealing with pedophile priests.
I will close with a paraphrase of the words of Jesus as set forth in John 8,7: He [or she] that is without sin among you, let him [or her] cast the next stone.
Another sane liberal American has his eyes opened by the actions that have now come to light about how Cardinal Ratzinger pursued the case of Father Marcial Maciel even before the CDF had the full power to do so. True/Slant describes itself as "an original content news network tailored to both the “entrepreneurial journalist” and marketers who want a more effective way to engage with digital audiences". Its foundrs have solid credentials and experience with America's largest media outlets:
Pope Benedict XVI and the Legion of Christ:
Giving the Pope a fair shake
By E.D. KAIN
April 9, 2010
There is a twin-narrative emerging amidst the many revelations of sexual abuse and cover-up within the Catholic Church.
On the one hand we are gaining an ever clearer picture of
just how widespread both the abuse was and how deep-rooted the cover-up went, both on the parts of bishops, but also on the part of the Vatican itself, and especially amongst some members of the hierarchy within the Vatican. [The now-entrenched myth that is myth because the abuse is factually far less widespread among priests than it is among lay teachers in secular schools, to take just one sector; and the cover-up was less deep-rooted than it was shallow expediency on the part of the bishops. And a great exaggeration if referred to the Roman Curia where only the Congregations for Bishops and for Religious Life have any nominal supervision of diocesan bishops and superiors of religious orders, respectively, and where, until 2001, the canonical tribunals of the Roman Rota were exclusively in charge of adjudicating cases that were raised to them by the dioceses - but only if it was raised to their level. However, such stereotypes live on because secular writers pick up and perpetrate factoids from earlier biased stories without bothering to check them out.]
On the other hand, we are beginning to understand the role played by Cardinal Ratzinger – the man who would be Pope Benedict XVI, and the man at the very epicenter of efforts to reform the Church and rid it of both the pedophiles and those who would protect and profit from them.
Contrary to many reactionary opinion pieces linking Benedict to the sexual scandals themselves, articles such as this excellent investigative report
ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence...
by Jason Berry of the
National Catholic Reporter, suggest that far from being a part of the cover-up of the terrifying sexual abuse scandal surrounding Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ, Benedict (both as pope and as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) not only refused the Legion’s money, but also acted against the wishes of his predecessor John Paul II and his advisors and struck out on his own to begin an investigation into the Legion and specifically into Maciel himself.
Indeed, just one week after John Paul II had entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center (and after many other instances wherein the former Pontiff heaped praise on Maciel and his organization) then Cardinal Ratzinger authorized his own investigation into Maciel. Shortly after Ratzinger became Pope he banished Maciel outright, and stepped up the Vatican’s efforts to investigate the Legion.
In 2001, Ratzinger – after years of being hamstrung in his efforts to investigate reports of sexual abuse in the Church – pressured Pope John Paul II to consolidate authority to investigate all reports of sexual abuse within in the Church in Ratzinger’s office – the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF. According to Berry,
The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.
Over the years Maciel was able to buy off the support of the various heads of the Congregation for the Religious, as well as many of John aul II’s confidantes, and in particular Msgr. Dziwisz, John Paul’s secretary and ‘closest confidante’ who Maciel used to gain access to the Pope and also to funnel a great deal of money to the movers and shakers within the Vatican. Not all Vatican insiders accepted Maciel’s money, however:
One cardinal who rebuffed a Legion financial gift was Joseph Ratzinger.
In 1997 he gave a lecture on theology to Legionaries. When a Legionary handed him an envelope, saying it was for his charitable use, Ratzinger refused. “He was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said.
The narrative is still emerging, as I noted above, but here is how it is unfolding:
As sexual abuse cases were coming to light in greater frequency in the 1990’s, then Cardinal Ratzinger had very little oversight of the abuse scandals.
His office was in charge of other crimes – particularly crimes carried out in the confessional, which is why his office was contacted in regards to the American pedophile priest Fr. Murphy who molested deaf boys for years and whose crimes were covered up by three subsequent arch-bishops before being brought to light by the media.
Murphy was purported to have carried out his acts in the confessional and this was the sole reason his case was brought to Ratzinger after over three decades of cover-up in the Milwaukee diocese where he was stationed.
In newly translated documents, Ratzinger’s deputy and Secretary of the CDF, Cardinal Bertone, expresses dismay at the number of years it has taken for the Milwaukee bishops to come forward with the information and at the difficulty in pursuing action against Murphy after so much time has passed and so much evidence has been lost.
For more on this, see Jimmy Akin
www.ncregister.com/blog/smoking_gun_memo_in_murphy_paedophil...
In any case, Ratzinger had very little control over the vast majority of sexual abuse cases because he was not in charge of overseeing their investigations. So he pressured John Paul II to change this and to consolidate control in the CDF which Ratzinger headed.
This happened in 2001, and from that time Ratzinger began the process of reforming how the Church handled such cases, and began to circumvent the ‘old guard’ of Vatican insiders who wanted to keep the status quo of cover-ups and hush money in place – such as Cardinal Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, a man heavily influenced by Maciel’s money, and Dziwisz, confidante to John Paul II.
It is a complicated story, no doubt, and there is a great deal more to tell and a great deal more we will end up hearing on the matter, but one thing is increasingly certain: Ratzinger became Pope knowing full well that his papacy would be devoted to ridding the Church of both sexual abuse and the cover-ups which allow them to continue.
He is surrounded by those who were complicit in these crimes, who are seeking even now to undermine his efforts. This includes members of the Legion of Christ, but also those with ties to the Legion and with ties specifically to Fr. Marcial Maciel.
One has to wonder, after all, at Cardinal Sodano’s recent defense of Benedict, and whether there isn’t a little poison in his words when he likens Benedict’s struggles to that of the controversial Pope Pius XII and his alleged inaction during the Holocaust.
[I've said enough about my own views about Cardinal Sodano's Easter Sunday remarks.. Those who describe it as a eulogy base it on the initial wire-service reports, but anyone who bothers to read it - very easy to translate from the italian - will see it was not a eulogy at all but a tribute of filial support and affection to the present father of the Church in behalf of all his children, the Catholic faithful, starting with the cardinals. Even when Sodano calls the Pope 'the unfailing Rock of the church', he was merely repeating Jesus's words when he made Peter his caretaker on earth... In this context, I suggested that Pope Benedict may have considered Sodano's gesture and words as his way of making amends for any mistakes he may have done in the past with respect to the sexual abuse issue.]
Contra Andrew Sullivan who writes:
Benedict XVI knew all of this. To his credit, he was clearly troubled by it, and never accepted its compromising money. But given the authority to pursue Maciel in 2001, Ratzinger held off for four years until Maciel’s protector, John Paul II, was incapacitated and near death. Which means to say: Ratzinger knew what had gone on, and allowed a clear molester and bigamist to remain a pillar of John Paul II’s Church for years.
[EEEWWW! I feel like I must Lysol this whole thread for having allowed anything of ultra-bigot Andrew Sullivan to sully it at all! But you see how he STRAIIIIIINS, as anal-retentives must do, to put Benedict XVI in a bad light even when he is acknowledging he did something good!. He did not 'hold off' for four years - he used the time to have the CDF investigate the charges. The first time I ever saw Mons. Scicluna's name, it was in connection with his having gone to the United States and Mexico to interview witnesses against Maciel in the early 2000s. And as to 'allowing' Maciel to 'remain a pillar of John Paul II's Church', it was not in the power of a mere cardinal to do that if the Pope himself did not want it that way!]
I think it is far more likely that Ratzinger acted as quickly and as prudently as he could given the many obstacles preventing any swift action against Maciel.
Some things simply take time, especially in an organization such as the Church, and with the sort of protections afforded Maciel by John Paul II under the influence of his advisors.
Far from a reason to continue to call for Benedict’s resignation, this information should illuminate just how thankful we should all be that Ratzinger became Pope. Indeed, many resignations are in order, but Benedict’s is not one of them.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/04/2010 13:59]