Pope accuses Sex abuse victims with slander?

[MoonlessNight]

I remember when the media ran with the story that Pope Benedict accused all sex abuse victims of slandering innocent priests.

What actually happened was this:

• In a Good Friday service, Pope Benedict gave a homily in which he discussed the struggles which believers must face, tying them to the Passion. One of these was slander, since Jesus was slandered against.
• A news outlet reporting this decided that Pope Benedict must have been referring to a current and specific act of slander against the Church, and that this act of slander must be about the sexual abuse cases.
• That outlet was cited by many other outlets in their reports, where they usually dropped all mentions of the homily at all and simply claimed that "Pope Benedict said that sex abuse victims are 'slandering' innocent priests."
• From there plenty of opinion pieces came out about how shameful it was that Pope Benedict would say such a thing, since it was now treated as an unquestioned fact that he did so.
  
• To keep the story alive, outlets released stories with new spin on it but with the same false claim. For example, there was a story where sexual abuse victims were asked how they feel that "Pope Benedict claimed that they were malicious slanders".

In that case, a big controversy over absolutely nothing. And it's not like this is uncommon: reporters are often sloppy and dishonest, they will commonly take reports from other outlets as the gospel truth without doing any independent verification, and they are incredibly dimwitted when it comes to matters of religion (for example, the New York Times once printed that The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is of such great importance to Christianity since that is where Jesus is currently buried.)

So until I see real sources on this, my gut feeling is that there's a 3% chance of this being controversy being substantial. And that 3% is only there because of how Pope Francis is often careless with his words, with Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II my gut feeling would be .1%.

 

[Halbhh]

the New York Times once printed that The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is of such great importance to Christianity since that is where Jesus is currently buried.)

That was believable, but I wanted to also see it myself, because I've read the Times so much over the years, and it would just be interesting to see the wording, and here it is --

"After decades of being covered with scaffolding and enmeshed in bitter sectarian squabbles, the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem has been restored, letting sunlight once again illuminate the site where Christians believe that Jesus is buried. The 900-year-old church and marble tomb, the holiest Christian site in Jerusalem, is controlled by three churches -- Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox.
--Feb 9, 1997
Sunlight Re-enters Holy Sepulcher Dome

And, followed later by a letter to the editor:
MARCH 2, 1997
To the Editor: Thank you for your informative update on the restored dome of Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem (Travel Advisory, Feb. 9).

But it was flawed by the tense of a verb: ''the site where Christians believe that Jesus is buried.'' However Christians may disagree, the physical resurrection of Jesus is the central point of their faith. Clearly such a belief makes the site in question the place where Jesus was buried, not is.

PETER C. O'DONNELL
New York, N.Y.
NYTimes - Holy Sepulcher

 

[MoonlessNight]

That was believable, but I wanted to also see it myself, because I've read the Times so much over the years, and it would just be interesting to see the wording, and here it is --

"After decades of being covered with scaffolding and enmeshed in bitter sectarian squabbles, the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem has been restored, letting sunlight once again illuminate the site where Christians believe that Jesus is buried. The 900-year-old church and marble tomb, the holiest Christian site in Jerusalem, is controlled by three churches -- Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox.
--Feb 9, 1997
Sunlight Re-enters Holy Sepulcher Dome

And, followed later by a letter to the editor:
MARCH 2, 1997
To the Editor: Thank you for your informative update on the restored dome of Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem (Travel Advisory, Feb. 9).

But it was flawed by the tense of a verb: ''the site where Christians believe that Jesus is buried.'' However Christians may disagree, the physical resurrection of Jesus is the central point of their faith. Clearly such a belief makes the site in question the place where Jesus was buried, not is.

PETER C. O'DONNELL
New York, N.Y.
NYTimes - Holy Sepulcher

The time that I was thinking about was more recent than 1997, so apparently the Times had made this mistake on multiple occasions.

EDIT: Digging around a little, I was able to find the time I was thinking of. (This is a picture of the print version, the online version was corrected after it launched, though there is no note of this on the current version of the story available online).

 

[Halbhh]

The time that I was thinking about was more recent than 1997, so apparently the Times had made this mistake on multiple occasions.

EDIT: Digging around a little, I was able to find the time I was thinking of. (This is a picture of the print version, the online version was corrected after it launched, though there is no note of this on the current version of the story available online).

Yes, it's such an mental ground assmption for many, so that they may never even stop and say "wait a minute" even though it's so basic and obvious.

 

[Open Heart]

TALKING THE TALK BUT NOT WALKING THE WALK

The same witnesses which were reliable to convict Chilean priests of abuse, are not, according to the Pope, reliable enough to convict the bishop of covering things up.

It's absolutely scandalous. Basically, I'm convinced that the Pope is willing to see priests as guilty unless they are his personal friends.

I'm very angry.

 

[Open Heart]

So until I see real sources on this, my gut feeling is that there's a 3% chance of this being controversy being substantial. And that 3% is only there because of how Pope Francis is often careless with his words, with Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II my gut feeling would be .1%.

It was the sworn testimony of some of the witnesses against Karadima that the Bishop watched.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

It’s hogwash.

 

[Open Heart]

It’s hogwash.

If their sworn testimony about the bishop is hogwash, why isn't that SAME TESTIMONY hogwash about the priest?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Because he never said that. Now take a deep breath.

 

[Phronema]

From what I gathered from my reading of the articles it seems that Pope Francis is only saying that there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the bishop without proof.

I realize some folks think that if the priest is guilty the bishop must've known about it, but can that truly be proven? Unless the bishop was present, or the priest admits to having confessed it to the bishop I can't imagine there's any proof that the bishop is guilty of wrongdoing. Even then is the bishop a mandatory reporter of such abuse during a confession?

Also, for the record I have no dog in the fight as I'm not Catholic. Just my interpretation and opinion.

Last, I'd like to add that I will pray for the victims of the abuse, and the perpetrator. This seems like the work of the evil one. Ruining the lives of innocents who were abused, and dividing us as Christians by using instances like this to take some people away from Christianity.

 

[MoonlessNight]

It was the sworn testimony of some of the witnesses against Karadima that the Bishop watched.

As far as I'm aware we don't have a reliable source for the pope saying anything.

But don't let that stop you from venting your self-righteous anger and lashing out at any poster who doesn't join in.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

It’s hogwash.

It is denial.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Here is an article from Kevin Cullen of the Boston Globe.

Kevin Cullen. Kevin Cullen (born May 1, 1959) is an American journalist and author.Cullen currently works for the Boston Globe. He was a member of the 2003 investigative team that won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal.

By Kevin Cullen GLOBE STAFF JANUARY 19, 2018
Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018.

When Pope Francis slandered victims of sexual abuse, ironically by accusing those very victims of slandering a Chilean bishop who was complicit in that abuse, he confirmed what some critics have said all along, what I have always resisted embracing: Pope Francis is a company man, no better than his predecessors when it comes to siding with the institutional Roman Catholic Church against any who would criticize it or those, even children, who have been victimized by it.

I offer my hearty congratulations to His Holiness, His Eminence, or whatever self-regarding, officious title that his legion of coat holders, admirers, apologists, and enablers insist we, the great unwashed, call him. Because he has revealed himself like no one else could.

By saying he needs to see proof that Bishop Juan Barros was complicit in covering up the abuse perpetrated by the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Francis has shown himself to be the Vatican’s newest Doubting Thomas. And it’s not a good look.

The pope’s outrageous slander of Karadima’s victims is all the more stunning and disgraceful because the Vatican itself had in 2011 accepted the truth of what those victims said and sentenced Karadima to what it called a lifetime of “penance and prayer” for abusing young people. Sounds like how a previous pope “punished” Cardinal Bernard Law for his dutiful coverup of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston by putting him in charge of one of the great basilicas of Rome and giving him digs in a palatial apartment where he was waited on hand and foot by servile nuns. Some punishment. Where do I sign up?

Pope Francis, company man - The Boston Globe

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

A little more from the Kevin Cullen piece in the Boston Globe.

To be honest — and the good Sisters of Providence who taught me at Cheverus School in Malden always stressed the importance of honesty — I knew that Francis was no different, that he was right out of central Vatican casting, last year, when Marie Collins quit the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors that Francis had created to much fanfare.

Collins, who was molested by a priest when she was 13, quit the panel because the Vatican was resisting genuine reform. I met Collins years ago in Ireland, where she is from and where I at one time lived, and I think she is a courageous, compassionate person who understands what sexual abuse at the hands of priests can do to one’s soul better than any of the mandarins in the Vatican, including the pope.

That commission, headed by the pope’s closest American confidant, Boston’s own Cardinal Sean O’Malley, was allowed to expire last month without an explanation from the same pope who took figurative bows for forming it in the first place.

Even Francis acknowledged that Marie Collins is a great lady.

“Marie Collins explained things to me well,” the pope said, after she resigned. “I’ve spoken with her; she’s a great woman. She continues to work on the formation of priests on this point. She’s a great woman, who wants to work. She’s right on some things.”

Well, he got that right. But it was a bit rich for the pope to portray Collins as some sort of trusted adviser. Collins insists she’s never had a conversation with the pope beyond pleasantries while shaking hands. I guess saying hello to someone constitutes consultation to Pope Francis. No wonder he’s as tone deaf as the others. They talk to each other. They smile and nod at the rest of us.

Pope Francis, company man - The Boston Globe

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"Pope Says Accusations Against Chilean Bishop Are ‘Calumny’"

Source:
National Catholic Register

 

[Michie]

"Pope Says Accusations Against Chilean Bishop Are ‘Calumny’"

Source:
National Catholic Register

Responding to a Chilean journalist who asked about the issue, Pope Francis said that "the day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I'll speak. There is not one shred of proof against him. It's all calumny. Is that clear?"

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Responding to a Chilean journalist who asked about the issue, Pope Francis said that "the day they bring me proof against Bishop Barros, I'll speak. There is not one shred of proof against him. It's all calumny. Is that clear?"

“That all depends on what the definition of is, is.” Lol
I shouldn't laugh it is sad and demoralizing.

 

[Open Heart]

As far as I'm aware we don't have a reliable source for the pope saying anything.

Pope says accusations against Chilean bishop are 'calumny'

 

[AvilaSurfer]

It is denial.

It’s unsubstantiated crap that you seem to like. Nobody believes your lies.

 

[Glaucus]

It’s unsubstantiated crap that you seem to like. Nobody believes your lies.

It seems to me that you're one of the few who doesn't believe the careless Pope said what is being widely reported.