The memo from the UK Foreign Office on the Pope: some thoughts

I was just reading some comments on the UK's Foreign Office memo on what the Pope should do on his forthcoming visit to that country. This was, in my opinion, not only insensitive by insulting.

According to Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph on his post the day after the memo was published (26 April, 2010):

Then I read the story and it turned out that this wasn’t, after all, a back-of-the-envelope note circulated at some boring forward planning meeting for the papal visit, as the gag about the Pope doing forward rolls seemed to suggest, or a bad-taste email to cheer up the office. These were “far-fetched” elements of a memo circulated to top civil servants around Whitehall, by members of the Papal Visit Team, along with an asking-for-it instruction: “Please protect; this should not be shared externally.” Hell, a note like that is tantamount to removing the little word “not” and begging for trouble.

And, he notes further:

It reflects, though, something of the mood of embarrassment in political circles about the Pope’s visit; you could sense it when the party leaders were asked about it during their debate. What we seem to miss in all this is that Pope Benedict didn’t just invite himself to Britain. Gordon Brown formally asked him to come when he visited the Vatican last February. Indeed, the Prime Minister wrote in the Catholic weekly The Tablet recently: “What struck me most that day was his personal kindness, for when he did me the honour of granting me an audience, he also insisted on welcoming my wife Sarah and our two boys. Naturally, Britain’s Catholics will feel a particular joy and pride in the Holy Father’s visit. My message is that that sense of joy should extend to people of all faiths and none.”

Then, a few days later when the leader of the head of the team in charge of the Papal visit was revealed, he notes that there are people in the Catholic heirarchy who are not happy with the visit and that "the Catholic Church in this country [the United Kingdom} is (a) not wildly enthusiastic about Benedict XVI, and (b) paralysed by political correctness."

Political Correctness, wow. If that's true, it's really sad that PC is so pervasive, common courtesy and politeness is now out the window.

Now, reflecting on the FO's memo and say the memo were on the visit of the leading Imam from a foreign country, I wonder what the memo would read. Let me posit this, probably super politically-correct to the point of being obsequous.

Thompson further said that "the four-strong FO team was led by a member of an ethnic minority and included a gay man. There’s nothing wrong with that: they could have done a fantastic job, particularly if the team had included a practising Catholic (perhaps from an ethnic community – they’re the ones who go to Mass these days). But they didn’t." He comments on the members of the heirarchy, especially a monsignor. I will not comment on that as this is not within the points I wanted to put forward.

If you, dear reader, had any doubt that the negative sentiment against the Pope, the Catholic Church and its members, including the heirarchy does not exists, please open your eyes.

The head of the FO team was put on other duties. I'm not sure if he was even reprimanded.

According to the Daily Mail Online post of 28 April:

Mr Noorani, 31, is far more senior than the Foreign Office has made out. Officials desperate to limit the damage have tried to play down his role, insisting he was merely a junior worker who acted without any authority.

But in fact Mr Noorani's title is 'Head of Papal Visit Team' and he is in charge of the staff preparing for the visit.

Until 2007, he was the press secretary at the British embassy in Moscow, trusted to handle delicate relations during the crisis over the poisoning of dissident Alexanda Litvinenko.

So, a high ranking FO member and no rebuke.

I am really stumped, what do you think?

A good take on Benedict XVI on the fifth anniversary of his election

To add to the many lines of type on the Holy Father, permit me to just write a few lines today.

Again, I checked out Damian Thompson's blog and found a great post on the pope. And, on the fifth anniversary of his election, it is quite fitting.

Thompson outlines a few things on the need of reforming, on the pope's background, his vision for the future and so on.

Allow me to quote from Thompson's blog:

How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: “The Church … thinks in centuries, not decades.” Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.

He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict’s pontificate to date.

And, quite importantly he notes that "Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice."

May I suggest you visit Thompson's blog for more details.

Where's the truth, when any assertion doesn't need to be proven?

Let's face it, if you open your mouth in support of the church you're immediately on the back foot. And, if you decide that attacking the church is the way to go, you're right on!

It's a worry, isn't it? When I took Argumentation and Debate many years ago, we were taught that it is incumbent to him who asserts to prove his assertion, not he who denies.(He who asserts must prove, not he who denies.)

Wow, in this day of trial by media, if someone beats you to the punch with a wild assertion, you're immediately on the back foot. Why? For crying out loud, why?

If I can again go back to stuff we learned in Philosophy, what if I asked you "Have you you stopped beating your wife?" Answer "Yes" and you immediately brand yourself a "wife-beater" and if you answer "No", worse, you are still a wife-beater.

Let's face it, with the constant attack on the Catholic Church, in the current atmosphere of you're wrong if I accuse you as such (never mind if I just made up the acusation), what do you do?

Not sure, really, but this is the position the Pope find himself in.

Yes, it seems a no-win situation. The accusers are on the front foot. And, the media are so far behind them, it's not funny.

Well, here's a thought, we also learned then, that an assertion without proof can be denied without proof. I was going to quote the Latin, but, well, forget it.

Heck, you accuse me as whatever, well, I deny it. So, since you have not given any proof in support of your allegation, well, I do likewise. I present no proof of my innocence.

Just imagine if the judicial system was run in this way. Wow.

It's a worry, isn't it?

Again, I ask you dear reader to step back and ask yourself the question: Is this a media beat up that's gone too far? Is the truth lost somewhere in the prejudice against the Church?

If I mouth what is supposedly the truth (the line pushed by the media) am I now being used as a tool to spread this prejudice? To spread the vitriol? The contumely?

Am I so silly as to just join the bandwagon that's pushing this? Another, non-thinking tool of big media?

Well, you tell me.

New accusations on the Pope merit a closer look

Last night a number of news services showed a letter signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, which purported to protect the disgraced American priest Fr Stephen Kiesle. One service did say that the letter was taken out of context.

Of course, those out there with an anti-catholic bias would say "Of course, they'd say that."

The story purports to implicate Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as complicit in protection of clergy involved in paedophilia.

Well, again, we see a media frenzy so anti-catholic, it's just not funny. When one slings mud, especially at someone dressed in all-white, some of it will stick.

As mentioned in an earlier post,it is so easy to do that with a well-known figure, like the Pope.

Let's go back to the media frenzy. And, put it into perspective.
I am grateful to Phil Lawler for pointing out just how this whole thing is one big media frenzy. So frenzied that no one really questions "stories", as long as they are anti-catholic.

Lawler's principal point is that journalism standards are so low, no one who reported the story bothered to ask questions.

Lawler presents the questions, thus:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

He further states: "This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. "

He also questions media competence, with the following point: "Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church."

The latter point is interesting as it posits the interested parties who will gain from the media picking up this story.

Back to Lawler's post:"If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective." He states further:

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

So, what do you think? Media frenzy on an easy target? Anti-catholic bias again showing its face?

Makes one wonder.

Some more thoughts on the Pope in all the child abuse accusations

I must admit I re-started my blog with my last post, which has ended up as a defence of the Pope.

Again, a few points:

1. This blog was set-up to defend the faith. Nail colours to the mast and all that. In other words, rather than quietly sit back while people took pot shots at our faith, this blog wanted to fire back some potshots in defence of the faith.

2. What I wanted to emphasise more than anything was the lop-sided view that seems to be out there. The anti-catholic leaning, the anti-Pope and so on.

Now, I suppose that one cannot defend the faith without defending the temporal leader. And, at present, that is His Holiness, Benedict XVI.

3. What I said earlier was to put another slant to all the accusations against the Pope. And, as an example of how he has gone against the tide was his treatment of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, who seems to have had Papal favour from the previous Pontiff.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger went after Maciel, despite that favour the former enjoyed from John Paul II.

I don't want to go further on this point, but do want to include some quotes from another blog. Also, from the same Telegraph stable, that of George Pitcher. BTW, he is an Anglican priest. Take that for whatever it's worth.

He says, inter alia:

Cardinal Schonborn has also revealed that he had discussed the allegations against Cardinal Groer with Pope Benedict when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The then Cardinal Ratzinger had apparently wanted cardinal Groer to be properly investigated. But a group inside the Vatican – “the diplomatic party in the State Secretariat who wanted to shove everything on to the media”, according to The Tablet – had protected him. Cardinal Schonborn distinctly recalls Ratzinger saying afterwards: “The other party got its way.”

He goes to mention Ratzinger's refusal to accept favours from the Legion, when he (the cardinal) went after Maciel. Then Pitcher adds:

The role of financial corruption in this crisis gives it another moral gravity. But Pope Benedict seems to be emerging better than some observers, perhaps led by American lawyers who see a fast buck to be made from compensation class actions, would like him to. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he evidently tried in the past to be part of the solution, rather than an accessory to the problem. As Pope, he really does have the opportunity and authority to be that solution.

Now, this doesn't put paid to the whole affair. It does, however, point out from another source, some points not covered earlier.

And, to give this more gravitas, as if it needed it, Damian Thompson, in a comment under the forementioned post, states:

This is a clear and fair analysis from an Anglican commentator. George, you put to shame Catholic hacks who have lazily repeated inaccurate statements in the media just because they hate the Pope.

Again, I put the above points for all it's worth.

Let's try to get our focus right in the many accusations against the Church

It's been ages, I must admit and I've been looking for something to write about in the last month or two. So, here goes.

Let's tackle the attack on the Catholic Church, with regards the accusations of child molestations and so on. First of all, let's get this clear: I do not condone the attack on the weak and vulnerable. Further, I condemn whoever uses a position of authority to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable.

And, if that someone is a man of the cloth, someone who has taken up the mantle of priest or religious, I have nothing to say in his defence.

Now, permit me to set out a a few things:

First of all, the accusations we hear about are not recent. A lot of them go back decades. Now, let's get this clear, even if these were centuries past, they are not condoned. No, they are condemned. Time does not loosen the gravity of the crime (better yet, the sin) involved.

Secondly, let's look at the current situation. Do you note that the spotlight is firmly focused on the Catholic Church and its heirarchy? I wonder why.

Maybe, I feel paranoid for the church or am a skeptic by nature, but it seems to me the anti-catholic forces are out in force. And, who but the Pope as target. Why not? The most obvious, most visible and the top-of-the-heap, the head honcho. Peter's representative, the Vicar of Christ himself.

Now, first an aside which does not, in any way, diminish the gravity of the wrong doings, the hurt, the sin of paedophilia, the taking advantage of the vurnerable, the abuse of the power and influence of the Roman collar and so on.

Recently, our parish priest talked about this. He made no excuses for the wrong doing but tried to put it into context. He mentioned that paedophilia happened at home. Perpetrators were members of the family. And, I believe that he posited the position that most of these crimes (sins) were committed by family members.

And, since many of these abhorrent crimes (sins) were not reported, we will never know how widespread these are.

Have you ever wondered why the spotlight is on the Catholic Church. What about other religions and denominations? Are we to assume that they are squeaky clean?

Now, I don't mention this to get the Church off the hook. On, the contrary, I want to clear the air, though I doubt that I can, considering the limitations of this forum.

And, thirdly, the attack on the Pope himself. Now to try to set out the facts on every accusation that involves the Holy Father will take a lot of time and bandwidth. And, I feel that it is beyond the scope of what I wanted to put forward.

Suffice it to say, let's look at a couple of things about what Benedict XVI has done before and during his papacy.

Allow me to quote from Damian Thompson's blog. Thompson is editor of Telegraph Blogs, a journalist specialising in religion. In his blog on 5 April, 2010, in response to the Daily Telegraphs' editorial, he put forward, inter alia:

1. The betrayal of the innocent by a small minority of Catholic priests and a much larger proportion of Catholic bishops and bureaucrats was truly monstrous. Pope Benedict XVI was right to acknowledge the Church’s deep shame. His predecessor should have done so.

2. Although the Pope may not have been vigilant enough when he was Archbishop of Munich, once he was in the Vatican he was disgusted to discover the scale of the crimes of predator priests – and fought a sometime lonely battle against complacent colleagues, from whom he eventually had to wrest authority to deal with canonical aspects of these cases in 2001. After that, their prosecution was speeded up. No wonder, since the Italian monsignori who previously dealt with them had spent most of the day plotting and stuffing their faces in their favourite trattorie.

3. Benedict XVI is still not well served by the people around him.

Now, this post is not a position in support of the Pope, as such. It is, I hope, a sincere effort to put a just light to expose the truth.

As an example of what the Pope has done in the past in his efforts to set the records straight and to do justice to his priestly calling, let's look at what he has done with regards to Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of Legions of Christ.

Again, I quote from Thompson's blog:

The NCR [National Catholic Reporter] can’t stand Pope Benedict, but it does reveal that Cardinal Ratzinger refused the 'donations' (charitable bribes) that the Legion sucessfully pressed on other senior Vatican clergy, sometimes to gain access to John Paul II:

In 1997 [Ratzinger] gave a lecture on theology to Legionaries. When a Legionary handed him an envelope, saying it was for his charitable use, Ratzinger refused. “He was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said.

A few years later, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who ignored John Paul’s wishes and moved against against Maciel, to the fury of the latter’s allies, who included Cardinal Angelo Sodano and John Paul’s secretary, Msgr (now Cardinal) Stanislaw Dziwisz.

In 2004, John Paul – ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel – honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel."

And, while I have gone off what I was originally trying to tackle, I wanted to put forward that the Pope has done something which the many Legionnaires believe is just not on. Attacking someone that many of them consider a saint, is just something too terrible to contemplate. And, he did this I presume in search of the truth and justice. I note that it was also against the wishes of his own superior, the then Pope.

And, just for the record, Maciel died in disgrace aged 87 in 2008. He was pushed aside and taken from the helm of the Legion.

This was done by the Pope against a strong phalanx of defenders.

I wonder, is this something someone who wants to sweep things under the carpet would do? I don't think so.

More in my next post.