“Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests”
A BBC “Jack Chick” type documentary aired this evening accusing Pope Benedict of taking the leadership role in covering up the sex abuse scandal. It was reported that about five years ago he sent out a document called The Crime of Solicitation – “which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.”
Patrick Wall, former priest and Benedictine Monk, who now makes a living suing the Catholic Church; and, Fr. Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer who claims, “he was sacked for criticizing the Church’s handling of child abuse claims (one excuse is a good as any other)”, both take shots at the Church and Pope Benedict.
The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church’s relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.
The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O’Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: “What gets me is that it’s the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens.”
Since when did responsible reporting stop requiring any burden of proof? Needless to say, this type of conspiracy theory slander is common place now-a-days, because truth doesn’t matter anymore when the prime objective is to inflict damage on the intended target.
.jpg)
Wall is unfamiliar to me, but Doyle is well-known in the US for victim advocacy. Sadly, it is also well-known that bishops continued to cover up for clergy abusers long after the issue was brought to the body of bishops at the USCCB. Getting into an argument over who scourged Christ more deeply (though given yesterday’s conversation, I thought we were talking about the Bride) doesn’t strike me as very seemly. The bishops have a lot of repair yet to do, and it seems that an extraordinary witness on their part will be needed to retire this story into history along with the other seamy aspects of the history of the hierarchy.
Comment by Todd — October 1, 2006 @ 2:53 PM
Todd,
With many newer Bishops being named by our last 2 popes, maybe our Church will begin to heal from the damage done during the last 40 years or so. I agree with your take on arguments over who scourged Christ more deeply, it isn’t very seemly; I’m also a guilty of doing the same. It seems the more The Church and It’s obedient and couragous clergy are attacked, the more His precious body is revealed.
On the issue of victim advocacy, that term has been so soiled by some individuals who destroy innocent men’s reputation by making public accusations but make no reparations when they are wrong, as they so often are. I think to many of these victim advocacy group members who claim to have been abused need to work on their anger and guilt (if applicable), you don’t nuke a village hoping to kill a thief.
Comment by shelray — October 1, 2006 @ 4:04 PM
Todd – your responses have a certain consistency to them. They are at best tortuous in logic but more likely, non sequiturs.
Anti-Catholicism is nothing new and there will always be sinful Catholics who will give agenda driven people plenty of opportunity to display their bigotry. Because anti-Catholicism is a time honored Anglo-American institution they will always find a certain resonance with the public.
In choosing His Apostles, Jesus showed us that we ought not expect to be free of Judas priests in any age. However, the sinful failures of the very few, as unexcusable as they may be, does not justify painting all bishops/priests or the office as an institution as untrustworthy and certainly it does not justify this libel against the Holy Father.
Shelray is right, these anti-hierarchical axe-grinders are disingenous and self-serving slanderers. I find your comments seem to display some of the same anti-hierarchical bias and to the degree that they do, they are at least as seamy as the history that they attempt to assail.
Comment by David — October 1, 2006 @ 4:24 PM