Sunday, April 25, 2010

New York Times Trys To Defend It's Reporting on the Catholic Church

The Deacon Bench has the link at The Times defends its coverage of the Catholic Church

I will have more thoughts later but please note no mention of the Oakland case is given and the problems with the New York Times Reporting of that.

I also know the "Op-ed" NYT section is different from the news department but they surely let Dowd run free there and had no comment on how she she did not put the Ratzinger's quotes in proper context so as to not mislead.

The problem is the stories based in the USA is there is no context given. I am not exactly sure why we are hung up on issues of laicization which is pretty much just officially for Canon Law persons moving someone from the Priest to the lay state though for all purposes they do remain a Priest because the Church cannot change that.

The "defrocking" occurs when they are removed from public ministry for all purposes. Something that the TIMES still does not make clear.

In his defense of the Times he does not also address the obvious. That the Vatican was facing real time troubles with an offical trial as to the Wisconsin case.

Criminal and civil cases can go on for years in the Secualr system but for some reason people are shocked that these things took time as to Lacizations(which I am not sure why we are getting hung up on that) in the Church.

I love this part:
In 1996, more than 20 years after Murphy moved away, the archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, wrote to Ratzinger, saying he had just learned that the priest had solicited sex in the confessional while at the school, a particularly grievous offense, and asked how he should proceed. Although there was no response, Weakland started an ecclesiastical trial but then worried about the church’s statute of limitations.....

But Murphy appealed to Ratzinger. The allegations were more than 25 years old, he was 72 and in ill health, and he had repented, he wrote. Bertone then suggested measures short of expulsion. Weakland said that, at a meeting in the Vatican, he failed to persuade Bertone and other officials to let the trial go forward, and it was halted in 1998, shortly before Murphy died. The documents support this account.

Again what is not being said here. First I find it very ironic that WEAKLAND is being portrayed as some HERO HERE. The Victims were very upset just a couple of years ago that Weakland was trying to "blame the Vatican".

Weakland knew of these offenses it appears way before and just got the Vatican involved when it appeared there would be lawsuits. He wanted to salvage things for PR so lets move him officially to the LAY state.

Again it is telling the Times ombudsman does not address their handling in all forms of the Oakland case which was very very troubling.

No comments: