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?

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.

You wonder about politicians

Being a good Aussie, I really cannot take our politicians too seriously.

Except, unfortunately, they can pass laws to make it hard for the rest of us. And, not just by the power of taxation which is vested in the state, but other means that they have over our lives.

The stem cell debate is a case in point. And, I add to that the lambasting that Cardinal Pell received in the hands of the NSW pollies.

And, this by supposed "catholic" MPs. Add to this the irony of the defence of the Cardinal by two non-catholic politicians. Both MPs of the upper house and members of the cabinet. I refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.

I suppose to put the boot in John Howard was quoted as saying: "I found the abuse of Cardinal Pell by many Labor members of parliament and one or two others very strange.

"Labor members of parliament are ritually told how to vote by union bosses. Their preselections are threatened if they don't do certain things."

When asked by a journalist if Cardinal Pell should be in contempt of the NSW Parliament, the Prime Minister said that this was "over the top."

Finally, I would like to quote a letter written by a fellow parishoner at St Bernadette's Castle Hill, Dr. John James, which I quote in toto:

"The public statements by Messr's. Rees, Iemma and Watkins, amongst others, in
response to the public statements by Cardinal Pell on the Cloning Bill before the NSW Parliament are both interesting and disturbing for a number of reasons.

"The Cardinal is simply restating what the Church has been saying all around the world for some time now. There have been examples of similar statements during the last US presidential election,and more recently in both Mexico and Brazil by Pope Benedict.

"People who publicly identify themselves as Catholics and who occupy positions in which they are formulating legislation that will affect the lives of citizens in their constituencies, cannot support legislation, let alone introduce such bills, that seek to legalise the destruction of innocent human life, no matter how noble their stated goal.

"When John Watkins publicly rebukes the Cardinal for his statement and suggests that such statements are meant to deny him an expression of his conscience, he simply demonstrates that he understands neither what it means to be a Catholic nor how conscience, properly understood, works.

"Conscience is that voice we all hear within us that commands us, broadly, to do good and avoid evil. Conscience, however, doesn't decide what is good and evil but looks for guidance and reasons outside itself for making such decisions. The only people who think their conscience is the final arbiter of good and evil are the psychopaths.

"The Cardinal is reminding faithful Catholics that the Teaching Authority of the Church, when it is universally expressed on such a fundamental moral issue as this, is expressing the mind of Christ. 'He who hears you, hears Me.'

"A practicing Catholic, as Watkins and Iemma claim to be, who deliberately sets aside the Church's teaching, is a little like a judge who ignores the legal statutes. Their conscience is malformed, will arrive at incorrect conclusions and they will do much harm in the exercise of their public office as lawmakers.

"They, in my view, have publicly excommunicated themselves.

"Just watch these same guys scramble for public photo opportunities when Pope Benedict arrives in Sydney next year for World Youth Day! Their hypocrisy is dwarfed only by their ignorance."

This letter comes from someone, who is not only a practicing catholic, but a medical practitioner, who would not only know about the moral dilemma of stem cell research, but the ethical and other considerations.

Definitely makes you wonder about our pollies, doesn't it?