Andrew M. Brown at the Telegraph.co.uk says it all in his opening paragraphs.
I read the coverage of the Pope every day in the newspapers and listen to the BBC news and as a Catholic and a journalist I feel like crying out pathetically: “This is not fair!” And it isn’t fair, or reasonable. Intelligent journalists who are normally capable of mental subtlety and of coping with complexities have abandoned their critical faculties. There is an atmosphere of unreason.
I cannot help feeling that a lot of it is down to sheer, blind hatred. It amounts to the demonisation of a whole institution and its leader. We have come to a stage where nothing good whatever, no good faith can be assumed of anybody involved in the Church – however senior, however greatly respected, loved, admired, including the Pope.
Damian Thompson says its liberal payback time!
It is also clear that many prominent liberal Catholics are turning a blind eye to this media vendetta because they don’t like Pope Benedict. They are happy for him to take the rap for diocesan cover-ups initiated, in some cases, by liberal prelates. Those relates are grateful for the opportunity to pass the buck to the one man who, though his record on this matter is certainly not beyond criticism, has done more than any other to rectify the Church’s lax procedures – Joseph Ratzinger.
…
If I was Benedict XVI, I’d be asking myself if I even wanted to visit Britain this autumn. For, when he does, he will meet English bishops, Catholic journalists and self-appointed spokesmen for the Catholic community who did not dare offend liberal opinion by defending him properly, or whose judgment was clouded by personal dislike of the Pope and his agenda.Some Catholics – not many, but they are prominent – are actually thinking: it’s payback time, Ratzinger. If we can make this mud stick, then we can continue to sabotage your liturgical reforms. In other words, they are using the victims of clerical child abuse to fight internal political battles. Why am I not surprised?
The Pope, for his part, say he won’t be intimidated by the gossip mongers.
Pope Benedict today risked inflaming opinion as he appeared to round on critics of the Catholic church over the widening sexual abuse scandal, saying he would not “be intimidated by … petty gossip”.
The 82-year-old pontiff led tens of thousands of people in a Palm Sunday service in St Peter’s square. He did not mention the scandal engulfing the church directly, but parts of his sermon alluded to it.
The pope said that faith in God helped lead one “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion”.
March 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Of course it's a media witch hunt fueled by ignorant and slothful thinkers, if that, who despise Christ's Church and Christ Himself in the person of His Vicar on earth. Leading among the most vicious and perfidious are the malignant, progressive forces within the Church.
But Our Lord warned His disciples that these events would happen and that they [and us] would be subject to the same calumnies and persecution as Himself. And it's no accident that this crap makes headlines now almost every Palm Sunday.
In the end, Christ rules supreme.
March 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Where the master is, so too the servant (ie., the servant to the servants) shall be. The hated Him, they will hate us also. Prophetic really. I am reminded that after the cross is the resurrection. Viva il Papa! I love you Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
March 28, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Liberal media probably thinks they can demonize Pope Benedict XVI like they did Bush… that's how Barack and the liberals won by trouncing on Bush… We all need to pray for the Holy Father! We cannot be complacent!
– gmtorre
March 28, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Four Words:
John R. Allen, Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html
If it be the case that there is a journalist who might be able to set the case right, he seems to be the one. Yes, I know he writes for America. But he appears to be a true Truth-seeker, not truly a part of 'liberal' or 'conservative' media.
March 28, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I am not progressive, in fact, quite traditional. I try not to be "slothful," read a great deal from many sources, and have read at length about the abuse crisis. This sitting Pope and his use of the "Papal secret" to gag victims and their bishops and threaten them with excommunication if they talked about this affair is shameful, horrible, terrible, and cries out to heaven for justice.
When you blame the media, your forget that without the media, nothing would have changed. Have you forgotten Ratzinger slapping ABC's Brian Ross for even asking him about Marcel Maciel? He lied, and said he wasn't informed about it. In fact, he had been dealing with it for years.
He lied.
He lied.
He lied.
Check it out.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4658963
Google Ratzinger and the "Papal secret"
No wishing it were different will make the fact go away.
March 28, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Blackrep brings up serious accusations. Who is ready to address them?
March 28, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Blackrep,
I checked it out, this link; it took me three viewings to see what the 'slap' was.
I find your posted interpretation disingenuous, misleading and offensive.
— Andrew
March 28, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I'm with Andrew – it was nothing! In fact, it looked like he "slapped" the rolled up paper in the reporter's hand, not the reporter. In any event, it wasn't what I would even consider a "slap," and Blackrep's post implies that it was much worse.
Also, Blackrep, he told the reporter to "come back" after they had heard some evidence or testimony (the audio wasn't clear re: that), so he wasn't even refusing to talk — just saying that it wasn't the time AT THAT TIME.
It sounds like our Holy Father is hanging tough. I am glad to hear it!
March 28, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Blackrep,
It is your outrageous calumnies which "cry out to heaven for justice". Shame on you for your distortions and lies.
To try to use the instruction released in 2001 to imply that the Pope covered up sexual abuse and hid it from the civil authorities is deeply dishonest and sinful.
March 28, 2010 at 8:13 pm
In all fairness, I'll include this link.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001018.htm
March 28, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Blackrep said "Google Ratzinger and the "Papal secret""
I did. Most of it was irrelevant, and those related to the topic were not from credible sources.
I could say "Google Obama and "Birth Certificate" too… doesn't mean the search results are true just because they come up on Google.
Blackrep's error is the same as that of the media: The interpretation of certain things out of context.
March 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm
During the reading of the Passion this morning, I thought of the similarities between Jesus being jeered on the Cross by the crowd & people (like blackrep) jeering the Holy Father in a media-fueled feeding frenzy.
Fortunately, the Pope has been training his whole life for this moment & isn't in panic mode now. It is not coincidence that this is happening during Holy Wk because his (& our) passion must be joined to Jesus.
While its sad to watch the pain to which the Pope is being subjected, its sadder still to watch those who condemn themselves by words out of their own mouths. At the same time, it fills me with joy to realize that Jesus' words are just as true today as they were two thousand & ten years ago: The gates of hell will not prevail against us!
March 28, 2010 at 9:50 pm
A witch hunt indeed. Back in the nineties, a Canadian Catholic writer penned "Father Elijah: An Apocalypse" which was written of a future time not long from now where persecution and malignment of the church was rampant.
The fact that the militant secularists are out there spreading lies, exaggerations and accusations doesn't surprise me since this has become a secular lenten tradition.
It's the ferocity, virulence and levels of hatred ths year that are somewhat surprising. They really have ratcheted things up now, and I suspect it's because, except for Fox, they control the media, and have never had a tighter hand on the government of the US itself.
The secular progressives are playing for keeps, and doing only what can be expected of them, since they know that they must eliminate traditional Christian morality, and the family and stamp out God and replace Him with the State. as long as the Catholic Church stands, they cannot succeeed. So while all the temporal stars are aligned in their favour, one can only expect them to strike hard. Pope Benedict was elected because his brother Bishops kne he was the kind of man who would be needed in times like this, a man who won't back down.
We , faithful catholics need to circle the wagons and watch his back.
I guess the progressives forgot to read the part where Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church….
March 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm
For the sake of argument, imagine for a minute all the lies told regarding the Holy Father are true.
So stinking what?
Anyone who is shocked, shocked I say, to think there might be scandal in the Holy See doesn't know much Church history. My favorite was Pope Formosus, not everyone gets exhumed and put on trial. Quite the guy! But he wasn't an anomaly by a long shot.
The point is, Christ preached of how the Kingdom of Heaven is like a field whose owner sowed wheat by day, his enemy sowed weeds by night. In order not to tear up the good with the bad, both were allowed to flourish (Matt. 13: 24-30) Thats our Church folks, like it or not.
Look at it this way, could such an institution occasionally headed by dirtbags survive if it were merely human in nature?
And I'll stress the following; I DON'T believe the lies being spread about Pope Benedict. Period.
March 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm
At Catholic Education Resource Center, Sean Murphy responds to Christopher Hitchens about that same document that supposedly was issued to require cover-ups to abuse:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0324.htm
It isn't new and it ain't true.
March 28, 2010 at 11:42 pm
It blows my mind that intelligent people who can read, write, and watch a video are not blowing kisses at the 4th estate for bringing this crisis to light.
Without them, you would know nothing, and your children would be in danger… and yet you persist in vilifying the press, as if such a thing would have the power to erase years of systemic abuse and the covering up of it by your fellow churchmen.
If nothing else will convince you, try reading the 1962 Vatican document "Crimine solicitationies" which bears the seal of John the 23rd, and is the blueprint for this crisis. You can find a copy of it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection
I remember being vilified utterly when I told my friends that I believed the victims of Marcel Maciel. He's a friend of Ratzinger's! A friend of Pope John Paul the Great! How can you think he would rape little boys and girls! I was branded an outright enemy of the faith, contrary to the upright life I'd led and the faith I'd practiced for 40 years. Now, where are my detractors? Licking their wounds, of course, because blind clericalism silenced their consciences – made them deaf to the cries of their own children.
I believe the press. I believe the victims. If anyone out there is a victim of this brutality and the attempts to cover it up, there are faithful Catholics out here who believe you, applaud your bravery, and pray that you will find it in your heart to forgive. Yours will be a heroic story if you can run the race, fight the good fight, and never give up your faith in God.
March 29, 2010 at 1:20 am
Thanks for the link, Denise. Murphy really wrote a stellar analysis. The pdf version, which is longer and more detailed, is even better.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/aphitchens.pdf
March 29, 2010 at 3:53 am
God bless Pope Benedict!
March 29, 2010 at 3:54 am
@Blackrep
Fact remains the NYT has no evidence to support its accusations of the Pope. So far, neither have you.
Bringing up Maciel is pretty irrelevant to this case. You can hate the Church all you like. Who knows, maybe you got as bad a deal as you claim.
However some of us want the "fourth estate" to actually provide evidence, not insinuation. So far you (and they) are merely begging the question assuming something is proven when it needs to be proved.
March 29, 2010 at 4:44 am
Blackrep – you're half right. The media have done a great service by ringing this sh*t to light and forcing the bishops to clean it up.
You're misunderstanding Crimen Sollicationis. It concerns secrecy because it was SPECIFICALLY about the crime of using the confessional to hit on a penitent. Because of the nature of the crime, the investigation/trial has to work around the seal of confession. Look at the link to John Allen's piece (Keeping the Record straight…) above, under Creative Minority reader.
The YouTube of Card. Ratzinger slapping that reporter – it looked like he slapped the guy's hand, but maybe by accident, as he was trying to wave him away. Maybe not – maybe he lost his temper. But his statement 'no, I'm not so informed…' sounds a lot more like someone who doesn't speak English very often trying to remember how to say 'No comment,' or 'I don't have any information at this time,' than a claim not to know anything about the allegations against Maciel. Especially since he essentially says 'ask me at a better time' after that. (Exact words 'ask when the moment is given. Not now')
Pope Benedict has shown plenty of evidence about caring about the victims and wanting to fix canonical procedures, and prod the bishops into doing the right thing.
He may very well have been responsible – as the captain of the ship, whether he was informed of the decision or not – in the case of Fr Hullerman. He didn't ask the right questions, and maybe he made the same mistake ALL the bishops made – to focus on the SIN, and the professed penitence of the sinner, rather than the CRIME; but even so, the diocese of Essen had already handled the legal side (iirc, the parents of the victims didn't want to press charges, and have their kids have to testify), so Cdl Ratzinger wan't involved in any cover-up. He was involved in the bone-headed decision to let H back into a parish, even before seeing if his therapy 'took.' For whatever reason, that decision was made. The archbishop should've given instruction that the guy wasn't to go back to a parish until cleared by the shrinks. He didn't, and the guy was sent back. However, H didn't reoffend until after Cdl R was off to Rome. So again, bad decision, bad policy, but no evidence of lies or cover-ups — and he LEARNED from his and others mistakes when he was given jurisdiction over these cases and started reviewing them. He came to see how serious the problem was, and has been trying to fix it ever since. He's not perfect, any more than St Peter was; but like St Peter, he's stepping up. It'd be nice if he said something about the Hullerman case – even if it was 'sorry, I don't even really remember what we talked abut at the time; but I take responsibility for my diocese and I'm sorry we gave him a chance to re-offend. By the way, it was really nice of Gruber to offer to take a bullet for me, but I don't hide behind my subordinates." But even if he doesn't, the bottom line is that the Holy Father is one of the few bishops who got a clue and is trying to reform the way the hierarchy deals with these things.
As for the MAciel case, WE DON'T KNOW exactly WTF happened. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence, or the statute of limitations was up. Maybe JPII, being a great and good man, but in this case, suckered by a sociopathic con artist, ordered the investigation stopped. B16 isn't going to throw JPII under the bus. We DO know that as soon as B16 took over, the sociopath was ordered to retire to a life of private prayer and penitence. You're blaming the wrong guy.
S. Murphy