The following comes from the EWTN blog, written by Raymond Arroyo, and posted in our circle of orthodoxy by Kelly. Nod of the miter at both of them.
The attacks leveled against Pope Benedict XVI get curiouser and curiouser.
Just so everyone is on the same page: first Benedict was accused of stopping a Church trial against a priest in Wisconsin. When that fizzled (because the priest died and the trial was apparently still ongoing) there were charges that he didn’t act quickly enough to laicize priests (never mind the fact that the priests were indeed removed from ministry).
This past weekend, the AP thought they had found the smoking gun: a 1985 letter bearing Ratzinger’s signature purportedly stalling the laicization of a priest. The AP got the story all wrong. Turns out the facts of the case exonerate Ratzinger entirely. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority over sex abuse cases until 2001. This case occurred in the late 80’s. The rule of thumb on all these stories is that the local bishop is the first person responsible for punishing priestly offenders and the one charged with protecting his flock from these menaces. To imagine that the Pope has the ability or the manpower to oversee and police the actions of every cleric around the globe is an infantile delusion. He is not Santa Claus. If the Pontiff had such powers, do you actually think there would be so many teaching and liturgical lapses throughout the Church?
It should be said that mistakes were most certainly made in dealing with priestly offenders and that the process of laicization was absurdly poky. But why is the media attacking the man in the Vatican principally responsible for streamlining the laicization process? Why go after Ratzinger–one of the few high-ranking Vatican officials who vociferously pursued these sex offenders?
He goes on to explain how noted atheist is planning on arresting the Pope. I’m sure we’ve all heard the name “Richard Dawkins” at one point or another, so we all should all summarily know how he’s one of these atheists who declares that all people should be tolerant . . . unless we’re talking about Catholics. Then it’s free admission day at the freak show. It truly is amazing how people get away with things that are this hate-filled. If the current scandal were with the Baptists, you would have massive demonstrations of our African-American brethren, all protesting the stereotypes that “blacks are Baptists” and (in this scenario) “Baptists are child rapers.” It’s ludicrous to think people would get away with that kind of slander! And yet, when it concerns the Roman Catholic Church, they do. They say these things, oppress us in society, and yet, when we lift a finger to defend ourselves, we are construed as belligerent.
Kind of makes you yearn for the days of the Inquisition, doesn’t it?
The entirety of the article is definitely worth a read, and can be accessed here.
|
One other interesting fact that seems to exonerate Benedict is that American Journalists use less than reputable sources. They continually use sources such as the heretical, pope-hating theologians such as Richard McBrien, and some of their "sources" have even come out denying that they have ever been contacted. Journalists do not seem to be interested in gathering actual facts about what happened, but would rather pass hearsay and rumors as cold hard news.
These news agencies seem to have some reason to hate the AUTHENTIC Catholic Church (most likely because it represent the antithesis to modern liberalism).
The same for these so called experts who wanted to delay the beautification of Ppe Pius XII. I'll bet they are basing their arguments on news reports and hear say and not fact!