George Weigel is always worth reading. But in this case especially so. Make no mistake that the Church is under attack right now. The Church’s enemies are emboldened. Read this by Weigel at NRO:
If Irish singer Sinead O’Connor wishes to denounce her mother publicly as an abusive parent, that is her privilege. If Ms. O’Connor wishes to shred a photograph of Pope John Paul II on stage, as she did almost two decades ago, she is, one supposes, within the boundaries of “performance art.” If Ms. O’Connor wishes to “separate” the God she believes in from the Catholic Church in which she was raised, as she put it in a March 28 article in the “Outlook” section of the Washington Post, she is free to do so.
What Sinead O’Connor is not free to do is to misrepresent the teaching and law of the Catholic Church in the Post in order to buttress her claim that the Church is an “abusive organization” and that the Church threatens with excommunication those who would blow the whistle on clerical sexual abusers. That is utterly false. If Ms. O’Connor is aware of that falsehood, she has lied. What is more likely is that she picked up this arrant nonsense from those who are attempting to portray the Catholic Church as a global criminal conspiracy of sexual predators, in order to cripple the Church morally and financially and to drive it from the public square in shame.
April 1, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I saw her on the youtube instance of Larry King live. What was scarey was she looked, sounded and reminded me of a lesbian who used to work for me and made my my life hell because I couldn't fire her ("protected" employee status). I guess the moral of this annectdote is not necessarily that all lesbians are bitter and very good at making our lives hell, so much as Sinead Oconnor should not be taken seriously on this subject due to her very transparent agenda.
April 2, 2010 at 12:29 am
Anyone unfortunate enough to have been appraised of Sinead O'Connor's antics over the past 15-20 years know she's a loon. Period.
Examples include being ordained a "priestess" in a schismatic cult, slandering the USA to the point that rapper MC Hammer offered (and paid) for her to fly back to Ireland. The list could go on, you get the idea.
The Washington Post and any other MSM outlet are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when they interview this nutcase.
April 2, 2010 at 12:31 am
Sigh. Well, I suppose being reminded that there's still lot of blatant anti-Catholicism out there is as good as Lent slap as any.
South Park, Townhall political cartoons, the Onion (though that was no surprise), this lie has had some serious traction.
April 2, 2010 at 4:18 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 2, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Her brother, a writer and journalist, pointed out some years ago that Sinead is not mentally balanced and that people should leave her alone (or ignore her). Unfortunately those who want to attack the Church don't care who they use. She is a very talented and beautiful woman but she has major problems.
April 2, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Her brother, a writer and journalist, pointed out some years ago that Sinead is not mentally balanced and that people should leave her alone (or ignore her).
I'd like him to know that that has been my policy even without his prompting.
April 2, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I read the Weigel piece, and he states that Crimens "was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession."
How does imposing automatic excommunication on the VICTIMS of sexual abuse, those they confide in (like their parents) or those solicited in the confessional, helpful to those victims in any way? Ask: who does it benefit?
If you don't want to "embarrass" anyone, why would you threaten them with immediate excommunication if they talk? Think of the terror that excommunication means to a faithful Catholic. It is a powerful inducement to silence.
If the document is so wonderful, why did Ratznger issue De Delictis Gravioribus when people began to find out about and circulate Crimens? Because Crimens is a BAD document, revealing an embarrassing bias against the victim. The victim and those he confides in are threatened with excommunication. The perpetrating priest is not. Why would a victim not be free, if he/she is solicited in the confessional, with revealing anything they wanted? It is THEIR confession, after all! You can walk out of any confessional, relate everything you told the priest and the priest told you to anyone you wish. Only the priest is bound by "the secret of the confessional."
The reason victims or their advocates were threatened with excommunication if they spoke has nothing to do with their own protection, and everything to do with protecting abusers in the Church. Ratzinger knew this.
So, it's not a big lie. It is the truth. The looniness of Sinead O'Connor doesn't make the truth a lie or vice versa.
April 6, 2010 at 12:42 am
George?
April 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Blackrep apparently didn't read the article or, much like Sinead O'Whacko, chooses to "interpret" what is read to suit their bias. Mr. Weigel and Rev. Newman clearly state that the parties to whom the abused reported a abuser priest are faced with automatic excommunication for revealing the identity of that party reporting the abuse.