Cardinal Brady and the Pope

VATICAN CITY, ITALY - DECEMBER 25:  Pope Bened...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

From the Archdiocese of Dublin, the Primate of Ireland and now the Supreme Pontiff, allegations of involvement in the cover up of child abuse have been directed at them all.

When reading the stories regarding the role played by Cardinal Brady in the Father Smyth case and the role the Pope was in, when he was in Cardinal in Munich there seems to be a strange similarity.

In 1975 Cardinal Brady was not the the bishop, he was only carrying out orders. While the then Cardinal Ratzinger, was in charge of of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising in 1982 and the issue of Father Hullermann and the allegations were raised.

Both are claiming they did the right thing and should not resign, they both can’t be right

The silence coming from the Vatican is not exactly a comforting sign for those who have been abused by members of the Catholic Church. Just like the statement from the Catholic Church in Ireland, trying to defend the indefensible hasn’t helped here.

Should one or both of them go?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Did we get it wrong on the Pope?

Pope Benedict XVI during visit to São Paulo, B...Image via WikipediaTallyman as an excellent post pointing out that the mainstream media and many blogs (including me!) got the Pope’s message wrong. Now I was working from what was reported in the media considering the Pope’s speech was in Latin.

Tallyman points out that there was “nothing new” in the speech but that the Pope was “following some very simplistic, narrow logic”. As he points out the “Pope regularly says things like this. This is something that we all understand to be Roman Catholic doctrine. How many gays still attend Church knowing this?”. I, like him, know lots!

The most important part in Tallyman’s post is when he points out that the Pope “does not single out the gay community in his New Years message.” (Emphasis his). In fact he points out the over arching theme of the message which was“Fighting Poverty to build Peace” which is a good idea.

He goes to point out that the Pope mainly called for teaching of abstinence to be considered a way of halting the spread of diseases, such as AIDS, and connects these diseases to poverty. Now while some people disagree with this way of halting the spread of AIDS, it must be admitted that it is one of halting the spread of the disease.

Tallyman concludes with the following

So, in one line the Pope has incensed the Gays, the Greens and certain sections of the media to declare him as inciting hatred. The Pope stuck to Catholic (albeit misguided dogma) in relation to what it deems to be a natural order. It didn’t tell all good Catholics to shun their homosexual neighbours, disown their homosexual children, or rise up in revolt against governments legislating for civil partnership. He asked us to me good Christians, to be mindful of the poor in this festive season and combat corruption and immorality in the name of the poor.

I don’t really see the harm in that.

So this to me seams to be logical, so why then did the Mainstream media take up the Pope’s message wrong? Why were we led to believe that he was equating Homosexuality with Climate Change?

While I am no fan of the Pope, I don’t think it is right that when he says something, it is misrepresented. As Tallyman puts it “i find any distortion of the Pope’s message by LGBT groups, the media, and those looking for a sound-byte, a bit rich, worrying, and it has to be said, gay.” Sentiments I agree with completely.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]