'Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope'

[frekk]

What is occurring is people are more than willing to just assign blame onto the Pope because they just dont like him regardless. Easy target, low hanging fruit and all that. These two comments show that attitude in spades.

What is occurring is that people are jumping to any defence of the Pope that sounds good, instead of looking at the facts. There's a word for this; it's called rationalizing. You decided before ever looking at the facts. Everything after that is just an exercise in defending a decision you made for psychological/emotional reasons. For instance, nobody has really bothered to answer the fact that the Pope did sign an order to cover-up sex abuse allegations from the police, except one person who pointed out that a few days ago the church changed its policy. Which doesn't change the fact that for almost a decade the order stood and Ratzinger intended to force bishops to coverup child rape on pain of excommunication.

Your loyalty is admirable, but misplaced. Those who aid and abet child rapists don't deserve your loyalty.

 

[Grisu]

I have deliberatly stayed away from this toppic, the flurry of hysteria on these boards including a dozen threads has convinced me that the simple truths of this OP are of no consequence to those who want a juicy story.

Indeed, it's a bit like the healthcare debate...just the other way around

Seriously, while it's true that some journalists have gone way overboard with accusing Paparatzi, a closer look at what happened sure is warranted due to the seriousness of the crimes and their spread among the RCC.

 

[MobBoss]

Your loyalty is admirable, but misplaced. Those who aid and abet child rapists don't deserve your loyalty.

Fwiw, I dont care about the Pope, and I am certainly not 'loyal' to him. I just havent seen any proof positive yet that confirms what everyone has been alledging about him.

For example, I think you make the assumption that Ratzinger signed this order with the implicit purpose of covering it up. I dont think thats the case, and what you assume to be one thing is simply him having to sign that document as part of church procedure in how it handles those issues.

Its greatly similar to the 'Bush lied' allegations, when its apparent that Bush didnt lie, but was simply making decisions based upon flawed intelligence (much like the rest of the worlds leaders were doing as well).

Bottom line, the case hasnt been made to me to satisfy me that the Pope has indeed done what he has been alleged to have done.

 

[ori]

Indeed, it's a bit like the healthcare debate...just the other way around

Seriously, while it's true that some journalists have gone way overboard with accusing Paparatzi, a closer look at what happened sure is warranted due to the seriousness of the crimes and their spread among the RCC.

I agree on both counts
Though the curious thing is that with all the focus on the pope and on allegations that so far have not actually contained anything incriminating against him directly, the focus has shifted somewhat away from the things that actually did occur and how it was possible for those things to run under the radar in too many countries for too long. Curiously the current pope actually at least acted to remove sole jurisdiction from the local congregations which failed miserably, pulled that to Rome and within just 2 years (from 2001 to 2003) issued guidelines that at least on paper enforce cooperation with local law enforcement. Given the glacial speed at which the Vatican usually moves this was almost speeding. Of course most of the actual allegations currently swirling around stem from well before this century, so neither the 2001 letter which people find so upsetting nor the now publicized 2003 guideline had any effect on the actual cases.

 

[Patroklos]

What is occurring is that people are jumping to any defence of the Pope that sounds good, instead of looking at the facts.

The facts are in the OP, which you didn't read. Or ignored because you are exactly what the OP was talking about.

 

[LightSpectra]

For instance, nobody has really bothered to answer the fact that the Pope did sign an order to cover-up sex abuse allegations from the police, except one person who pointed out that a few days ago the church changed its policy.

Serious allegations as such require the source to be posted, which you have not done so yet.

 

[LightSpectra]

Another interesting article, from an independent commentator:

Jewish Former NYC Mayor Koch: Enough with the Attack on the Pope Already

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, April 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism,” said former New York City Mayor Ed Koch in the Jerusalem Post yesterday.

Koch, a Conservative Jew, says he disagrees with the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Judaism) on abortion, homosexuality, divorce, contraception and more, but nevertheless says that the Church has a right to hold to these beliefs and much of the attack on it today stems from opposition to those teachings.

“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,” writes Koch. “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.”

Koch added: “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. … Orthodox Jews, like the Roman Catholic Church, can demand absolute obedience to religious rules. Those declining to adhere are free to leave.”

The former U.S. Congressman (1968-77) and three-term Mayor of New York City (1978-89), suggests that, “The primary explanation for the abuse that happened … was the belief that the priests could be cured by psychotherapy, a theory now long discarded by the medical profession.”

Despite his ideological disagreements with the Church, Koch says, “I believe the Roman Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, not evil.”

He concludes, “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.”

SOURCE

 

[Grisu]

I agree on both counts
Though the curious thing is that with all the focus on the pope and on allegations that so far have not actually contained anything incriminating against him directly, the focus has shifted somewhat away from the things that actually did occur and how it was possible for those things to run under the radar in too many countries for too long. Curiously the current pope actually at least acted to remove sole jurisdiction from the local congregations which failed miserably, pulled that to Rome and within just 2 years (from 2001 to 2003) issued guidelines that at least on paper enforce cooperation with local law enforcement. Given the glacial speed at which the Vatican usually moves this was almost speeding. Of course most of the actual allegations currently swirling around stem from well before this century, so neither the 2001 letter which people find so upsetting nor the now publicized 2003 guideline had any effect on the actual cases.

Absolutely. What really baffled me was that several Landeskirchen (national churches?) - or at least the swiss one - seemed to totally disregard the letter of 2003. At least the swiss catholic church declared only a week ago that their official policy is to not report such cases to the authorities and leave that task to the victims.

 

[frekk]

For example, I think you make the assumption that Ratzinger signed this order with the implicit purpose of covering it up. I dont think thats the case

Oh? Why else would you threaten people's careers for reporting a crime to the police?

Also it's consistent with statements of Ratzinger in other documents, such as his remark that the "good of the universal Church" should be considered in child rape cases.

To be fair, Ratzinger does not condone child rape; the problem is that he seems to think that it should just be the Church's business to investigage and punish offenders, and it is not the business of outsiders to interfere, lest the church's reputation suffer. This is wrong. We wouldn't let any other group exempt itself in this manner from criminal law and trust it to police itself. The authority of secular criminal law is supreme; that is the concept of the rule of law. The church is not ultra vires and it may not conceal criminal offences, regardless of whether it intends to take action on its own or not.

 

[frekk]

Serious allegations as such require the source to be posted, which you have not done so yet.

I have. Without refuting what's been posted with sources, you're just making an empty assertion.

 

[frekk]

Another interesting article, from an independent commentator

Independant commentator? John-Henry Westen? Who are you trying to kid?

http://www.theinterim.com/2008/june/06westen.html

 

[Shekwan]

Ryan Report

'nuff said. The Catholic Church in Ireland and their enablers (ie. The Vatican) are responsible for their institutional child rape. We're talking about destroyed lives here.

Its complete bs that the media are trying to enhance ciriticism of the Pope based on some sort of agenda to discredit the Catholic organisation's beliefs such as anti-condom use and anti-homnosexuality. When an organisation, by inaction, allows such endemic child rape they will get no sympathy from me and deserve none from the population as a whole. To try to paint the Catholic Church or the Pope as a victim here is not only wrong, but extremely disrespectful of the real victims of their abuse.

Also, Light Spectra, you can pretend you're too high and mighty for OT all you want, but the truth is that you just don't have the stamina to win a quote war. Thats your fault, and not a knock on Our Character.

 

[LightSpectra]

I have. Without refuting what's been posted with sources, you're just making an empty assertion.

Already responded to what you posted before; if you just want to pretend that never happened, your credibility appears to be likewise in either scenario.

Independant commentator?

The commentator being the former mayor, who is neither an abuse victim nor a Catholic loyal to the Pope.

Ryan Report

'nuff said. The Catholic Church in Ireland and their enablers (ie. The Vatican) are responsible for their institutional child rape. We're talking about destroyed lives here.

Are all American soldiers guilty because of what happened at Abu Ghraib prison? I'm assuming you'd say no, otherwise you would be utterly insane. Therefore, why would you blame every single member of the Catholic clergy for something that is an extremely isolated incident (insofar that you would not be able to find this type of behavior to be common by any means globally among Catholic priests) among several hundred thousand?

Furthermore, blaming the Vatican for this is rather ridiculous, wouldn't you say, because it's similar to blaming Obama for whenever a public school teacher is indicted for molestation?

 

[JollyRoger]

I agree that journalists have abandoned their standards here. Any other person of such a high profile that covered up such atrocities would receive much tougher treatment from journalists.

 

[LightSpectra]

I agree that journalists have abandoned their standards here. Any other person of such a high profile that covered up such atrocities would receive much tougher treatment from journalists.

I like how in attempting to make a joke about the matter, you've only demonstrated that you're exactly as uneducated as the author of the first article contends.

Moderator Action: Flaming.

 

[JollyRoger]

I like how in attempting to make a joke about the matter, you've only demonstrated that you're exactly as uneducated as the author of the first article contends.

Isn't he a journalist? My point stands.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh? Why else would you threaten people's careers for reporting a crime to the police?

First of all, if all you are going to do is post what you think what occured and thats it, without any subjective consideration of alternatives, then whats the point of continuing?

Also it's consistent with statements of Ratzinger in other documents, such as his remark that the "good of the universal Church" should be considered in child rape cases.

Uhm...dont you think they should be interested n something along the lines of the good of the universal church? Sounds like common sense to me.

To be fair, Ratzinger does not condone child rape;

Yeah...thats really fair of you.

the problem is that he seems to think that it should just be the Church's business to investigage and punish offenders, and it is not the business of outsiders to interfere, lest the church's reputation suffer.

Being in the Army, I can assure you the miltary gets accused of this same thing all the time. So I can relate.

This is wrong. We wouldn't let any other group exempt itself in this manner from criminal law and trust it to police itself.

Uhm. The military does indeed police itself to a large extent.

The authority of secular criminal law is supreme; that is the concept of the rule of law. The church is not ultra vires and it may not conceal criminal offences, regardless of whether it intends to take action on its own or not.

If there is hard evidence that the Pope did as alleged, then arrest his ass under that 'supreme authorita' and charge him. Otherwise, go away. All this whining about the Pope is tiresome.

And I still havent seen any real proof from a legitimate source to convince me yet of whats being alledged.

 

[Yeekim]

I have. Without refuting what's been posted with sources, you're just making an empty assertion.

You seem to have missed this counterargument.

except that he didn't - the letter being referenced for this covers the disciplinary proceedings within the church about which all involved are ordered to keep mum. There is no prohibition against working with the state on criminal proceedings in that letter.

 

[ori]

I didn't source it though since the vatican's website only has that letter in latin and I was looking for a complete english translation, which is among others here.
This letter just deals with canonical sanctions - and doesn't even mention or otherwise indicate that these things need to be kept from the respective state authorities. It does make reference to the rules of conduct for canonical proceedings which proscribe disclosure of such proceedings for everyone involved - but that again does not include any proscription of working with local authorities.

 

[naterator]

the simple truths of this OP are of no consequence to those who want a juicy story.

The OP refers to Stephen Kiesle, it says that this wasn't an abuse case, but a request from a priest for laicization, which is only half true. It was a case of laicization of an abuser. The issue with kiesle is that he was convicted in 1978 of tying up and molesting 2 boys. The church knew this, he was a priest since 1972, ratzinger clearly had that information available to him. In 1982 ratzinger was sent a letter from kiesle's bishop asking to expedite the process; given that we are talking about removng a convicted child molester from the priesthood, waiting 5 years to act is exactly “… 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.”. The NYT hit the nail on the head, at least with that quote (which is all that is provided in the OP)

As for this part:

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!

Both are true. American bishops DID plead with the vatican to act, they were stonewalled, so they either did nothing or moved them to another area instead of contacting authorities (perhaps because they were sworn to secrecy under penalty of eternal fire and pointy things?). The vatican forced hundreds of (mostly good) men to choose between their church and what they knew to be right, and the overwhelming majority chose their church, putting them at fault as well.


edit -

I didn't source it though since the vatican's website only has that letter in latin and I was looking for a complete english translation, which is among others here.
This letter just deals with canonical sanctions - and doesn't even mention or otherwise indicate that these things need to be kept from the respective state authorities. It does make reference to the rules of conduct for canonical proceedings which proscribe disclosure of such proceedings for everyone involved - but that again does not include any proscription of working with local authorities.

I think it's pretty clear that even if it wasn't intended to prohibit telling civil authorities, that is still how it was interpreted and enforced, otherwise we'd see a higher report rate tham the 24% we see in america (and significantly lower in ireland i'd bet). Also, given how explicit it is about how you can't nod, wink, or do anything to ever even indicate anything that ever happened or else you'd be excommunicated ipso facto with no trial even "for the most urgent and serious cause" or "for the purpose of a greater good", the lack of anything clarifying that it's ok to tell the local authorities is massively negligent; particularly since the oath was given to the victim as well.
If Wal-Mart only reported 24% of the rapes it's management was accused of, i doubt the CEO would get off so easy in the press.


re-edit -- looks like it's actually alot less than 24% being reported by churches, it's actually 24% of all priests accused in america have been reported to authorities by anyone.

Spoiler :

REPORTING AND ACTIONS TAKEN

• To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.

• Half of the allegations that were made (49.9%) were reported by the victim. In one-fifth of the cases (20.3%), the allegation of sexual abuse was made by the alleged victim’s attorney. The third most common way in which the abuse was reported was by the parent or guardian of the victim (13.6%). Allegations made by other individuals, such as by a police officer, a sibling, or another priest, occurred in 3% of cases or less. These allegations were most commonly made by calling the diocese (30.2%), in a signed letter to the diocese (22.8%), or in a legal filing (10.5%). All other methods by which the allegations were made, such as in person, by telling a trusted priest, or through the media, occurred in less than 10% of cases. Cases reported in 2002 had a similar distribution of types of reporting as in previous years. The full report contains more detailed and additional analyses related to the information provided above. This report is descriptive in nature. Future reports will examine the relationships among the variables described here in more detail and will be multivariate and analytic in nature.