New York Times Tries to Tag Pope, Again

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on [Friday's] front-page article on Pope Benedict XVI:

The purpose of this story is to do what the Times failed to do in March: blame the pope for the sexual abuse scandal. It failed again.

We are told that when Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope) was in charge of the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he had authority over sex abuse cases, but never exercised it. It cites as evidence some old instructions dating back to 1922 that Australian Archbishop Philip Edward Wilson “stumbled across” when he was a student in the early 1990s. When he mentioned this 10 years ago at a Vatican meeting, “few people in the room had any idea what [he] was talking about.” In other words, there is no proof that even Ratzinger knew of this alleged authority.

“Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal” when Ratzinger headed the Doctrine of the Faith Office. This is not only true; it undercuts attempts to blame him. We also learn that there were at least a half-dozen offices (besides the one run by Ratzinger) that bishops reported abuse cases to. This is also true, and while it does suggest a bureaucratic problem, this is not the same as moral irresponsibility. We also learn that Ratzinger was preoccupied with all kinds of issues at the time, which is also true, but it is malicious to say he went after Latin American priests for preaching on behalf of the poor: the few liberation theology priests who were questioned were Marxist sympathizers.

The most accurate summation comes from Irish bishop Eammon Walsh. At the meeting a decade ago, he said of Ratzinger, “this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing.” Yet he also acknowledges that those in Rome never had firsthand experience with some devious priests, and therefore took the position that the accused was “innocent until proven guilty.” Not only is this understandable, from a civil libertarian perspective, it is highly commendable.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • john2

    I feel an impulse to repeat the counterarguments and evidence that crush the points made in this Times article. But all that is well known to CE authors, readers, and commenters. No need to repeat it here and now.

    The NY Times is a sad joke, if a joke can truly be sad. They never get tired of their headless rhetorical games. Having read this overlong article, I am happy to conclude that it was not worth reading – a complete waste of time.

    It is pleasing to see that Mr. Donohue and the Catholic League do such (AND in such quantity) good work in correcting the Times.

MENU