A senior cleric mounts a sharp counterattack to the abuse allegations now swirling around the papacy.
Pope Benedict XVI sees the priestly sex scandal as a “test for him and the church,” his spokesman said Wednesday, as bishops around Europe used Holy Week’s solemn call for penitence to pledge transparency in dealing with the abuse of children.
But amid such signs of humility, a senior cleric also mounted a sharp counterattack to the allegations now swirling around the papacy. In an article, the official accused the New York Times of faulting the pope unfairly for his treatment of past abuse allegations.
Cardinal William J. Levada, the former Archbishop of San Francisco and a close aide to the pope, attacked the newspaper’s main story on the abuse scandal last week and an editorial as “deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness” and defended the way the Church and the Vatican had handled the Murphy case.
“I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on,” said a 20-paragraph statement written by Levada.
The Times responded, saying its reports were “based on meticulous reporting and documents.”
[More]
Related:
Updates:
3:00 pm EDT, April 1st, 2010 — Pope has immunity in abuse trials: Vatican3:02 pm EDT, April 1st, 2010 — Catholic Abuse Hotline Overrun Amid New Allegations
3:03 pm EDT, April 1st, 2010 — Abuse survivors tell Cardinal Brady to resign
3:04 pm EDT, April 1st, 2010 — German bishop accused of beating orphaned girls
Notes:
I find this ongoing media assault on Christianity at Easter appalling. We don’t see that with other religions and it infuriates me. Just so people know where I stand.
A quick thought: I know it can be tedious sitting in church listening to many of the half-hearted and ill conceived sermons that are in evidence everywhere but this Easter plan to attend church (grin and bear it) and in doing so send a very strong message to the media. One they won’t like at all.
Write it up to “support” for a way of life our forefathers fought and died for if you can’t think of any other reason. And “bye the bye” — our forefathers did not not die for pedophiles who betrayed their faith. Just so you know.
This is happening because of lawyers and “tort” legislation (really big bucks) when in truth it was a police matter all along. If you’re not on my page yet pick up a book written by John Grisham entitled “The King of Torts” and read it.
You will never look at this situation in the same way again as reality begins to intrude.
It must be the fault of all those little boys. What a pathetic Pope.!
What a pathetic comment.
#2 — What a pathetic response to a serious problem in the catholic church.
‘Vatican told of pedophile priests as far back as 1963′ and did very little to help save these kids.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/vatican/abusescandal/article/788618–vatican-told-of-pedophile-priests-in-1963
Not really, UV. To be fair I’ve dumped a lot of information into this post since your first comment and my reply. My suggestion is to wait for what else comes down the pipe BEFORE you comment.
Just a hint.
More than enough has come ‘down the pipe’ Jack as the world sits back in (sad) amazement as to what has been going on for sometime (and kept quiet) and widely documented with these innocent victims. Many lives have been destroyed!.
‘Why this Pope wont heal the Church’
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152785549
I still remember that sad case many years back at Newfoundland involving abused children by Priests.
Put it away UV. Get the book (Notes) and read it.
And then come back.
Geez Jack, I thought you would have had some sympathy for the abused kids. Guess I was wrong.
‘Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece
A sense of traditionalism is exactly what the Catholic church is counting on and precisely why they’ve never been taken to task for their misdeeds and failure to punish misdeed. I don’t think your forefathers fought for child molesters to go on a rampage and be moved from parish to parish just to do it again. What WON’T people support under the assumption that supporting it will spite the “liberals”?
Just another reason why “we did it before” is a poor justification for anything.
No fiction book or sappy ode to an idealized past can cover the fact that this abuse has been going on for centuries within an institution that appoints itself moral judge of all – no attempt was made to make difficult decisions like the “Christ” they supposedly admire. Anyone who thinks this institution’s behaviour should be defended cares more about their own image (as Westerners) than they do about what the Church actually does or the people affected by what it does. What value is any religion based on saving face?
RE: Previous comments.
I am NOT defending child molesters. I am defending the church and I don’t like what I am reading because lawyers are getting filthy rich.
Pick up the book and read it. It has to do with a way of life you and yours have enjoyed for centuries. It also has to do with the destruction of “said way” because of instant riches for lawyers and therefore the reason they pursue the issue.
I am not saying the Church is correct.
What I am saying is that lawyers see a situation where they can become filthy rich overnight. You can support them or get “on board” and deny them their “gold mine”.
Frankly, I don’t support them at all and they are history.
I’m not going there. The matter is far to important and I do not support legal thieves.
Go to church Sunday morning and send them all a message they will never forget.
Any institution will have a few bad apples. What separates a good institution from a bad one is how bad apples are dealt with. The church dealt with its (numerous) bad apples by hiding them, moving them from parish to parish, denying all allegations and accusing accusers of being anti-Christian. They let their believer down and they let society down. They abused their high standing to cover activity that would have gotten anyone else jailed (or worse). There is nothing reputable about their conduct and it shouldn’t matter what trinkets, symbols, historical distortions, mascots, doctrine or other type of prop that an institution should employ to convey its ideals. They’re dirty – bottom line.
The church has attained riches on the trust of those they’ve betrayed. Maybe they should pay. Many of the priests are long dead without having faced a day of justice. The institution is alive and reaping what was sown. The lawyers are greedy but not entirely in the wrong.
P.S. – centuries? Try 50 years, very little thanks to the church.
Get the book. It’s spellbinding (and written by a lawyer) who is not impressed either if I have it right.