Pope Benedict, who says he is "ashamed' of the child abuse scandal that has damaged the American Church, managed to set his personal afflictions aside as he was welcomed with White House pomp and ceremony. At his side was George W. Bush, a president who unleashed a maelstrom of death and destruction upon the people of Iraq, based on a pack of lies. These two men, despite their differences, have a lot in common. Neither one is prepared to take responsibility for decisions that have had a ruinous effect on untold numbers of lives, and both seek absolution by evoking the name of their God.
The pope's claim that he is "ashamed" of pedophile priests, overlooks the key role he played in enabling their activities. In 2001, then Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a secret Vatican edict, an updated version of "Crimen Sollicitationis", that made clear to bishops that the interests of the Church were to be safeguarded first and foremost. A key element in the document was secrecy. Church leaders were encouraged to obtain information from complainants, the accused and witnesses, but to refrain from reporting to the police. Some in the Church have interpreted the call for secrecy as an attempt to cover up scandalous conduct.
The BBC documentary, Sex Crimes and the Vatican, claims that Ratzinger enforced the document for 20 years. Father Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer (since relieved of his duties) has been highly critical of the Vatican's handling of abuse cases. Doyle is adamant that the document was a written policy to cover up sexual abuse:
"What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."
The pope hasn't disciplined or demoted any US bishop tainted by the scandal. Moreover, in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, Fabian Bruskewitz remains the only bishop in the US who refuses to comply with the annual sexual abuse audits. He also refuses to implement points in the National Charter. Bruskewitz is a reactionary holdout who not only hasn't been disciplined by the Pope, but hasn't even been required to put these needed protective measures in place. This says a great deal about the contradictions that lie behind the pope's show of contrition.
A different type of hypocrisy can be seen in the Pope's dealings with Islam. Despite claims that he seeks to reach out to Islam, in 2006, in the German city of Regensburg, Benedict chose to quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor. The quotation is a flagrant provocation: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith."
It's hard to imagine that the pope could be so naive that he failed to recognize the insult contained in these words. His claim that he was simply seeking to demonstrate that dialogue with Islam is never easy is simply ludicrous. Why on earth would you choose such an obviously provocative passage in order to make that point?
When the Muslim world reacted with anger, Benedict began to backpeddle.
Despite his claim that he wants to reach out to Muslims in the spirit of goodwill, the pope continues to undercut his words with provocative actions that set back his agenda. He hopes for example to have more churches constructed in Muslim countries in the Middle East, in order to meet the needs of Christians living in those countries. Well, you don't create the conditions for that development by giving the symbolic finger to the Muslim world.
Recently the pope staged what can only be described as a politicized "show baptism" of the Egyptian born journalist, Magdi Allam. This conversion was so provocative that the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq-al-Awsat likened the baptismal water to "gasoline on the fire" of cultures. Allam is somewhat like a male version of Oriana Fallaci, given to inflammatory warnings about the nefarious influence of Islam in Europe. He is the author of a book entitled "Long Live Israel."
Along similar lines as the feigned naivety Benedict assumed after the Regensburg misstep, some Vatican insiders have been putting about the unlikely story that the pope wasn't aware of who he was baptizing.
Joseph Ratzinger is oddly devious. He has a reactionary view of the role of the Church and incubates negative attitudes toward Islam, and yet he puts on a show in an effort to disguise his obvious prejudices. How can Muslims trust a Christian leader who conducts himself in this fashion, let alone dialogue with him in a spirit of open accord?
After the Regensburg speech 138 Islamic scholars of liberal persuasion wrote a letter to the pope. Recently a small group of Islamic scholars arrived at Rome airport, in order to attend a Catholic-Muslim forum. They waited for transportation, but eventually gave up and made their own arrangements to get to the Vatican. This may seem like a small incident, but it speaks volumes. If the pope was seriously interested in opening avenues of goodwill and communication, surely it would have been a small matter to ensure that his guests weren't left idling in an airport lounge.
Behind the high sounding words and sentiments expressed by pope Benedict, what is lacking most all is genuine transparency and the will to follow through in a manner that inspires confidence.
The pope's claim that he is "ashamed" of pedophile priests, overlooks the key role he played in enabling their activities. In 2001, then Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a secret Vatican edict, an updated version of "Crimen Sollicitationis", that made clear to bishops that the interests of the Church were to be safeguarded first and foremost. A key element in the document was secrecy. Church leaders were encouraged to obtain information from complainants, the accused and witnesses, but to refrain from reporting to the police. Some in the Church have interpreted the call for secrecy as an attempt to cover up scandalous conduct.
The BBC documentary, Sex Crimes and the Vatican, claims that Ratzinger enforced the document for 20 years. Father Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer (since relieved of his duties) has been highly critical of the Vatican's handling of abuse cases. Doyle is adamant that the document was a written policy to cover up sexual abuse:
"What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."
The pope hasn't disciplined or demoted any US bishop tainted by the scandal. Moreover, in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, Fabian Bruskewitz remains the only bishop in the US who refuses to comply with the annual sexual abuse audits. He also refuses to implement points in the National Charter. Bruskewitz is a reactionary holdout who not only hasn't been disciplined by the Pope, but hasn't even been required to put these needed protective measures in place. This says a great deal about the contradictions that lie behind the pope's show of contrition.
A different type of hypocrisy can be seen in the Pope's dealings with Islam. Despite claims that he seeks to reach out to Islam, in 2006, in the German city of Regensburg, Benedict chose to quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor. The quotation is a flagrant provocation: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith."
It's hard to imagine that the pope could be so naive that he failed to recognize the insult contained in these words. His claim that he was simply seeking to demonstrate that dialogue with Islam is never easy is simply ludicrous. Why on earth would you choose such an obviously provocative passage in order to make that point?
When the Muslim world reacted with anger, Benedict began to backpeddle.
Despite his claim that he wants to reach out to Muslims in the spirit of goodwill, the pope continues to undercut his words with provocative actions that set back his agenda. He hopes for example to have more churches constructed in Muslim countries in the Middle East, in order to meet the needs of Christians living in those countries. Well, you don't create the conditions for that development by giving the symbolic finger to the Muslim world.
Recently the pope staged what can only be described as a politicized "show baptism" of the Egyptian born journalist, Magdi Allam. This conversion was so provocative that the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq-al-Awsat likened the baptismal water to "gasoline on the fire" of cultures. Allam is somewhat like a male version of Oriana Fallaci, given to inflammatory warnings about the nefarious influence of Islam in Europe. He is the author of a book entitled "Long Live Israel."
Along similar lines as the feigned naivety Benedict assumed after the Regensburg misstep, some Vatican insiders have been putting about the unlikely story that the pope wasn't aware of who he was baptizing.
Joseph Ratzinger is oddly devious. He has a reactionary view of the role of the Church and incubates negative attitudes toward Islam, and yet he puts on a show in an effort to disguise his obvious prejudices. How can Muslims trust a Christian leader who conducts himself in this fashion, let alone dialogue with him in a spirit of open accord?
After the Regensburg speech 138 Islamic scholars of liberal persuasion wrote a letter to the pope. Recently a small group of Islamic scholars arrived at Rome airport, in order to attend a Catholic-Muslim forum. They waited for transportation, but eventually gave up and made their own arrangements to get to the Vatican. This may seem like a small incident, but it speaks volumes. If the pope was seriously interested in opening avenues of goodwill and communication, surely it would have been a small matter to ensure that his guests weren't left idling in an airport lounge.
Behind the high sounding words and sentiments expressed by pope Benedict, what is lacking most all is genuine transparency and the will to follow through in a manner that inspires confidence.
Tags:
