Of course, the world does not have to be told that the Pope, Successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ, spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Catholics and spokesman for the world's more than 2 billion Christians, is always 'a person who matters' in the contemporary world, just by being who he is - in the same way that the President of the United States, whoever he is, matters... But this year's TIME list of 'People who mattered' in 2010 includes the Pope for the wrong reasons - and with a write-up that is shot through with malicious inaccuracies that serve to perpetrate the black legend still being created by the media about Benedict XVI. What can ever be done about this inexorable media process of systematic mythification of malice????
Apparently, someone at Catholic Culture reacted right away...
Time continues misrepresentation
of Pope Benedict
December 15, 2010
In an issue that names Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook as the “Person of the Year,” Time magazine lists Pope Benedict among other important newsmakers, with a short piece that contains several glaring errors.
In reference to the Pope’s much-discussed statement on condom use in Light of the World, the
Time article by Kayla Webley reports that the Pontiff “said only that a male prostitute may choose to use a condom to prevent the spread of the HIV infection.” That’s not quite what the Holy Father said. But the next paragraph of the Time piece is spectacularly misleading.
Time reports:
"It seems 30 years ago, during a brief tenure in Munich, the Pope, then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, had transferred a known abusive priest to his own archdiocese, ostensibly for therapy. But just days after his arrival, the priest was allowed to serve among the flock and subsequent sexual assaults occurred".
The facts:
•At the time in question, the future Pontiff held the title of Cardinal, not Archbishop.
[He was both Cardinal - his rank in the Church, and Archbishop - his function at the time!]
•Cardinal Ratzinger allowed the notorious priest to live within the Munich archdiocese while receiving counseling. He was not transferred “ostensibly” for therapy; he was admitted to Munich for that purpose and that purpose only.
•The vicar general of the Munich archdiocese gave the priest a parish assignment without informing Cardinal Ratzinger. Notice how
Time tries to finesse the question of responsibility by saying that he “was assigned’ — thus creating the inaccurate impression that Cardinal Ratzinger made the assignment.
The facts of the Munich case are now widely known. If
Time does not present them accurately, the reader is left to wonder whether the reporting is malicious or merely incompetent.
[Unfortunately, the average reader won't even wonder - he/she will just take it for granted that those are correct facts!]