Saturday, March 27, 2010

More truth on Benedict

More responses are being made in defense of Pope Benedict. It is late and I am tired- the news of this day is exhausting. I want to be well rested for tomorrow's Masses and confessions. Three more articles well worth your read that CNN won't link for you, but I will. There is no coincidence that these attacks are being made before Holy Week when Pope Benedict has duties and is zealous to spread the faith to new hearts and reawaken it in cold hearts. We must pray.

I started with this at the end but it needs to be at the beginning. It is the best read comes from comes from Father Raymond J. de Souza in National Review Online. Father de Souza pulls no punches and gives a clear timeline:
It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.
This is a must read for Catholics serious about defending their faith and their pope.

A second author, John Allen, of the National Catholic Reporter sets the record straight regarding what Pope Benedict was really responsible for in his days at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This has to do with the NY Times' accusation that Benedict, then Ratzinger, was complacent in the face of an abuse case from Milwaukee. He is pointed to say blame does belong to certain leaders of the Church- and even to Benedict- but not in the way he is demonized by the NY Times.
Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.
Finaly, if you aren't worn out, a good read is from Zenit, a news service from Rome. They have a translation from the Italian Bishops' Conference publication Avvenire.
The documentation published by The New York Times contradicts its own thesis, which accuses Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of not being sufficiently energetic in the case of an American priest who the Church punished for acts of pederasty.
Read the whole thing here.


libhom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fr. Andrew said...


Polemics are not allowed, isolation and accusation are not allowed. Mature discussion is allowed. If you decide to contribute to an actual discussion of the issue, please do so. Until then, your comments will be screened- and if they are of the same tone, deleted.

God bless you.

Furthermore, if you have wounds or other issues that you wish to address, I encourage you to seek a priest for your own consolation and counsel.