Today The Guardian published a vitriolic attack on Pope Benedict XVI by Tanya Gold which accused him of colluding in the protection of paedophiles and ended thus: "Welcome, Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romae, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles… Don't tread on the corpses."
I described it this morning as the most poisonously anti-Catholic article to have appeared in the mainstream media in decades. However, The Guardian is anti-Catholic these days, and we do have free speech in this country, and on the whole I think professional offence-taking is a bad thing.
But, as CP Scott himself put it, "comment is free but facts are sacred", and when Gold accuses the Pope of colluding in the protection of paedophiles she is making an accusation that requires a pretty high level of proof.
Which she doesn't have.
She writes: "In May 2001 [the then Cardinal Ratzinger] wrote a confidential letter to Catholic bishops, ordering them not to notify the police – or anyone else – about the allegations, on pain of excommunication."
No, he didn't.
As Archbishop Vincent Nichols pointed out in 2006, when a BBC Panorama documentary made this allegation, the 2001 letter to bishops "clarified the law of the Church, ensuring that the Vatican is informed of every case of child abuse and that each case is dealt with properly.
"This document does not hinder the investigation by civil authorities of allegations of child abuse, nor is it a method of cover-up, as the [BBC] programme persistently claims. In fact it is a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offences.
"Since 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took many steps to apply the law of the Church to allegations and offences of child abuse with absolute thoroughness and scruple."
Gold's article is also highly selective, not to say misleading, in its presentation of the facts relating to the Church investigation into the scandal surrounding Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Maciel was a favourite of Pope John Paul II, on whose instructions Cardinal Ratzinger closed down an investigation into various allegations. Perhaps he should have refused to obey the Pope – but what Gold fails to mention is that the moment Ratzinger was free to reopen the case (ie, when JPII became mortally ill) he did so, and as Pope sent the dying octagenarian priest into exile while a proper investigation into this massively complicated case began.
It's nowhere near finished, but Pope Benedict is determined that the truth comes out, even at the price of dismantling the entire order. Quite right: Maciel was a vile piece of work, a seducer of young men and the father of several illegitimate childrn – but even if you think Cardinal Ratzinger colluded in his protection, the awkward fact remains that the Mexican was not, so far as we know, a paedophile. A nice distinction? Not in a court of law, which is where The Guardian would end up if it had made these claims about an ordinary individual.
Gold's attack on Pope Benedict doesn't read like the work of someone very familiar with the detail of the paedophile scandals. I'd like to know how much research actually went into it. The sad fact is that the upper ranks of the clergy are stuffed with prelates who were complicit in the protection of paedophiles – but the former Cardinal Ratzinger, whose Congregation assumed responsibility for investigating the scandals only at the end of JPII's pontificate, is not one of them.
On the contrary: Benedict XVI is currently engaged in "purifying" (his word) the Church of the "filth" (his word again) of priestly sex abusers. It's one of his priorities as Pope. It wasn't one of John Paul II's priorities, though it should have been. But he is dead, so Gold goes after his successor, intending to trash his reputation but actually doing serious damage to that of The Guardian.
OK - I am happy to address both points.
1) Sexism - Can I quote the Catholic Church's official position on women.
The Catholic Church believes men and women are equal but it recognises that they are different. What people get confused about is the lack of women priests in the Catholic Church.
2) Homosexuality
Here is the official teaching on homosexuality from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
So yes the Catholic Church is very clearly against homosexual activities but not against homosexuals. The entire Catholic Church is very clear on the distinction between sin and the sinner him or herself. The Church is also very clear in its teaching that the only person able to cast judgement on a person is God himself.
I do not at all get confused about the lack of priests in the Catholic Church, it is an outward sign of the misogyny of the faith. There is no strong biblical reason for not having women priests, bishops or even a pope, yet the chruch developed under a patriarchal system and stayed that way. At the end of the day the same opportunities are not available to men and women in the Catholic Church. This is putting aside their reluctance of contraception which does little for female equality and pretty much leaves women as biological baby factories.
The difference is pretty much semantics. How would you feel if the organisation that you were brought up in basically said "Your feelings of love for your wife are completely unnatural and a sin against God, stop it."
The very article you quote from calls homosexuality "objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" surely you can see how, coming from someone other than a church, this would be considered homophobic?
Would you consider me bigoted against if I said that you believing in God was objectively disordered?
The Catholic faith is demonstrably discriminatory against women and homosexuals.
I would personally look for another word than 'disorder', but I think it's good that you do not judge gay people detrimentally.The thing is my love for my wife IS perfectly natural and normal. I do believe that homosexual sexual activity is a disorder. I also believe that any sex outside of marriage is a sin. I don't have any prejudices against gay people. In fact to be honest I wouldn't have the arrogance to seek to judge them. I have gay friends - I don't have any ill feelings towards them. I am not perfect and I accept that, but I live my life with the understanding that when I die I will have to account for my sins.
The short answer to the lack of female priests in the Catholic church is based on Jesus selecting 12 male disciples.
It isn't a case of "man" making this decision and the Church is explicit when it affirms the absolute equality of man and woman.
When you talk about men and women not having the same "opportunities" in the Catholic Church that shows a lack of understanding. There are no "opportunities" in the Church, only vocations. It isn't a job.
I also fail to see how the Church opposing contraception has anything to do with equality.
The thing is my love for my wife IS perfectly natural and normal. I do believe that homosexual sexual activity is a disorder.
I don't have any prejudices against gay people.
Something tells me that this thread didn't go quite where the OP was hoping.
I would personally look for another word than 'disorder', but I think it's good that you do not judge gay people detrimentally.
Something tells me that this thread didn't go quite where the OP was hoping.
I agree yeah, but you didn't really clarify "science". The science or knowledge of how things work, the incredible universe, the inner workings of living things and this amazing planet. It is really interesting to try and get to know the mind of God. However, there is no support for theistic evolution in the Holy Bible or scriptures, in fact as mentioned by others - such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.Christianity happily coexists with science.
Excellent point, and one that should be made much more often.Because education and easy access to control their own bodies is pretty much essential for female equality?
I agree yeah, but you didn't really clarify "science". The science or knowledge of how things work, the incredible universe, the inner workings of living things and this amazing planet. It is really interesting to try and get to know the mind of God. However, there is no support for theistic evolution in the Holy Bible or scriptures, in fact as mentioned by others - such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance.
Well if you take the definition of disorder as a deviation from the normal system or order then you will see where the Church teaching comes from.
Perhaps if I could live in peace without somebody knocking on my door with a bible telling me I'm a sinner because me & my girlfriend are not married ... every so often I'd be a little more understanding.
Because I like to hear what they have to say & see what kind of questions they come out with - I enjoy engaging them in conversation & ask them how they would feel if I knocked onto there family door & tried to tell them they were all going to hell for not believing in Allah.They knock on your door just to tell you that? But how do they know? Is God telling them the details of your private life?
As I said, no strong biblical justification. At no point did Jesus say "Women cannot be priests". Probably because he said very little about priests...
It is absolutely about man making a decision because God most certainly hasn't or if he has decided not to get it written down. Regardless of what the church says it's actions show that there isn't equality.
Matthew 16:18-19 said:So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
However women are not allowed to follow the same vocations. If a woman wants to be a priest she cannot be. The Catholic Church is ruled by men.
Because education and easy access to control their own bodies is pretty much essential for female equality?
Which pretty much proves the point? If I said that I thought religion was a disorder you would think I was bigoted yet you do not feel that saying homosexuality is a disorder is at all bigoted? They are exactly the same thing.
Other than thinking of them suffering from a disorder...
It exists within the animal kingdom.I am puzzled by your view on this. Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?
I ask them if they think I'm a sinner based on a few basic facts of my life - which unsurprising I was & needed "saving".