Regarding the NYT and the catholic church, i could easily point out
one mistake the catholic church made in it's history and claim the rest invalid based on nothing but it, but it is not a valid technique so i will refrain from it.
The Galileo affair involved the
scientific consensus contradicting Galileo, saying, in a nutshell "If this were the case we'd expect to see [wiki]parallax[/wiki] from the earth's movement, we don't, kindly stop claiming your hypothesis is fact", the Pope saying "you heard them, put up or shut up", and Galileo responding by reiterating his views, calling the Pope an idiot, and claiming theological competence which he has no accreditation for. As a result, Galileo was told to stop preaching heliocentrism when he had no evidence for it.
Meanwhile, what's with the obsession for the RCC and the ignoring of the child abuse at schools? Where are the calls for the Secretary of Education to resign?
The NYT article is about a bishop who has moved a molester around instead of turning him in to authorities. Are you denying such things happened?
No.
In the arizona case with Ratzinger, the priest has said that he knew he was to be defrocked, and did not appeal.
The parties involved are contradicting one another. You say the priest did not appeal,
Lombardi says he did appeal. I search for "teta appeal" and get more opinions in both directions.
Even if he did, It is not up to the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, Ratzinger, JPII, or jesus humself to decide whether the case had merit. It is up to the judicial system, and every single person in on the secret trial is guilty of covering it up simply by investigating in lieu of, instead if in addition to, the local authorities.
I suspect the RCC disagrees with both sentences, bearing in mind what I mentioned above that I was told: that the judicial system declined to prosecute several such cases. Thus it's reasonable to think that it's up to people in the RCC to decide whether the case is worth reporting to a system that's turned it down before, and that it's not covering up to handle internally something that the externals didn't always want to handle.
Plus in that case, the priests behavior was described by his own bishop as 'satanic'. But no rush, a 12 year trial is perfectly reasonable.
Which is why Ratzinger allegedly worked to streamline the process once he was clued in. In the previous generation of moral panic about child abuse, the infamous McMartin case ran from 1983 to 1990.
No. I think there are plenty of other cases with B16's fingerprints on them, but
fingerprints prove presence, not guilt. Again, the various sides are down to contradicting one another.
And so it goes. The mainstream secular media keeps saying that the Catholics are covering up and in denial, the Catholics keep saying that the media is unjustly blaming B16 and obsessed with the RCC, and both sides seem to have a point. Child abuse occurred in the RCC, child abuse occurred elsewhere, the media reported on the RCC, the RCC questioned the overfocus, and the RCC and the media grew hostile and started strongly distrusting one other to the point of fabricating accusations.
So does anyone know of decent news sources which 1) aren't Catholic, and 2) had coverage of child abuse outside the RCC?
(PS: Also, I'm bowing out for a while now. I really don't feel like digging up more defense on a church I don't belong to, but I think I've shown the problem that exists that makes it hard to get a reliable account short of declaring one side a priori reliable.)
