Archive for March, 2010

The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI:
how it looks to an American in the Vatican

By Cardinal William J. Levada
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

In our melting pot of peoples, languages and backgrounds, Americans are not noted as examples of “high” culture. But we can take pride as a rule in our passion for fairness. In the Vatican where I currently work, my colleagues – whether fellow cardinals at meetings or officials in my office – come from many different countries, continents and cultures. As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness.

I say this because today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 2 Comments »

SIGN THE PETITION

March 31, 2010

Mr. Clark Hoyt
Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

E-mail: public@nytimes.com

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

Last week on March 24, the New York Times ran a story by Laurie Goodstein entitled, “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys“.  As you are probably aware, this article touched off an international storm of controversy about how the Pope and the Vatican have handled the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.  (Of course, there is a much bigger problem of child sexual abuse outside of the Church, but we don’t need to provide such unnecessary context to a New York Times article.) 

The reaction to the allegations in the article has been vicious, incendiary, and predictable.  The ensuing rhetoric has reached near euphoric proportions for the anti-Catholic bigots who are using the article’s claims to score cheap political points against the Church, with some of them going so far even to call for the Pope’s resignation. Needless to say, the last acceptable bigotry in the world today, anti-Catholic bigotry, has now been stoked by many of the errors, half-truths, distortions, and unfounded pretexts found in Ms. Goodstein’s article.  

The point of this letter, Mr. Hoyt, is simply to point out a couple of critical factual errors in the article in question.   The first error is actually the main thesis, and consequently the main source of controversy, in the article:

“But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.”  (Source)

The article states that Archbishop Bertone “halted the process“.  Yet, this statement is simply not true and represents a distortion and even fabrication of the events, as the documents that Ms. Goodstein used in his report even confirm.  None of the documents give any indication whatsoever that Cardinal Bertone “halted the process” against Fr. Murphy.  In April 1998, there was a recommendation by then-Archbishop Bertone, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, to implement pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy had no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process because of a number of extenuating circumstances, not the least of which was the frail health of Fr. Murphy and the lengthy and cumbersome procedures involved in a full blown canonical trial.  However, this was only a suggestion on the part of Archbishop Bertone since the local bishop retained full control on the ultimate decision.  In fact, the next month, the Bishop of Superior, Most Rev. Raphael M. Fliss, rejected Bertone’s suggestion for pastoral measures and began formal canonical proceedings against Murphy.  The case was abated by the local bishop (Archbishop Weakland, himself a one-time active homosexual) 2 days before Murphy’s death on August 21, 1998 and only when it became evident that Murphy was on his death bed.

Just yesterday, the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, accused the Times of making “a huge leap of logic and information” in connecting the pontiff to the case involving Fr. Murphy, and for failing to do the basic courtesy of contacting him or checking the accuracy of quotations erroneously attributed to him:

With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying “odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people.” Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”

The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.

Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he [Editor's note: Archbishop Weakland] had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.

Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information. (Source)

Therefore, in light of these two glaring errors, I am asking you to secure from the New York Times the following:

1) a retraction of the statement that “Cardinal Bertone halted the [canonical] process” when he did no such thing,

2) a retraction of the comments attributed to the judicial vicar, Father Thomas T. Brundage, which were never written by him, and

3) an apology from the New York Times, placed prominently on the front page, acknowledging the error and the slander on the good name of the leader of the world’s Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI, and his assistant at the time then-Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone.

Mr. Hoyt, I am sure you can appreciate that, among faithful Catholics, the reputation of the New York Times has not been particularly high in recent years. I can assure you that, unless these corrections are made, not only will the New York Times have no credibility left with us, but it will be rightly considered  just another bigoted, anti-Catholic publication which spews distortions and outright falsehoods to advance an anti-Catholic agenda.

The allegations made in the article in question are now being roundly refuted and exposed on the internet.  The question now is not so much if the errors will be corrected and known, but what reputation the New York Times wishes to hold among people who value accuracy and fairness in news reporting.

John Pacheco,

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.socon.ca/?p=5909


GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again.  This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

Comments 7 Comments »

Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of church trial

By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JCL

For CatholicAnchor.org

To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.

To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently serve. Archbishop Schwietz is also the publisher of the Catholic Anchor newspaper.

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments No Comments »

Comments No Comments »

(29 Mar 10 – RV) 3,000 cases of sex abuse against minors by priests or religious have been dealt with by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith since 2001. According to Raymond de Souza, a priest and columnist with Canada’s National Post newspaper, this is the quiet revolution taking place in the Vatican when it comes to investigating cases and ensuring those responsible are brought to justice. We spoke to Fr de Souza about allegations made – most recently in the New York Times’ article on the Fr Lawrence Murphy case – that the Vatican is being ‘lenient’ or covering up cases and abusers.

If anything, this whole New York Times lie is going to expedite the purging even more.  If the homosexualists thought this was going to benefit them, they miscalculated grossly.  It will only show that the main stream media is thoroughly corrupt and illegimate.



Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again. This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

INDEX PAGE

Comments No Comments »

March 30, 2010 (CatholicWorldReport) – The very secularists and libertine Catholics who wanted the aberrant sexual revolution to enter the Church in the 1960s and 1970s now hold Pope Benedict XVI responsible for its lingering effects. This takes considerable gall, but that has never stopped them before.

Moreover, what moral authority and “credibility” do they bring to the issue of protecting children, exactly? These are the same people who favor the abortion of unborn children. They favor the high-brow child abuse of turning children over to homosexual couples at gay adoption agencies. They think it enlightened to bring Planned Parenthood representatives into elementary schools. They celebrate on Main Street gay-pride parades that include the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

The moral authority of these Church-hating ideologues is nil. We are witnessing the repulsively absurd spectacle of a culture drenched in depravity lecturing the Vicar of Christ on moral responsibility. One doesn’t even have to agree with every action or inaction of Benedict’s ecclesiastical career to see that these attacks on him have been appallingly stupid, glib, and Pharisaical.

Liberal pundits call for the resignation of the Pope with about as much consideration as they order a latte. The press interprets the Pope’s recent comment that faith leads one “toward the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion” as a response to these calls. It probably wasn’t, but if it was, he is right. This is just the petty punditry of petty people who preside over a culture increasingly defined by the corruption of children.

Pope Benedict has taken serious steps to address the abuse scandal in the Church. What steps have a degenerate liberal elite taken to protect children in society at large? The feverish drive to silence and smear the Pope — from the New York Times to pundits like Andrew Sullivan and Maureen Dowd to editorialists at the National Catholic Reporter — is not about the protection of children but the imposition of liberal ideology on the Church. Period.

Their real objection to Benedict is not that he has done too little to reform the priesthood but that he has done too much. It was the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter that pounced on him for issuing, in his first year as pope, a ban on the ordination of homosexuals. It was the National Catholic Reporter that ran pieces casting the “zero-tolerance” policy as heartless and draconian to wayward priests.

These are not reformers of a permissive priesthood but proponents of one.


Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again. This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

INDEX PAGE

Comments No Comments »

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, March 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Fr. Thomas Brundage, a former judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee who oversaw the 1996 canonical proceedings against Fr. Lawrence Murphy, has shot back at New York Times and Associated Press articles that have attempted to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in a “cover-up” of clerical abuse by Fr. Murphy, and others.

Brundage slammed the news organizations for making “a huge leap of logic and information” in connecting the pontiff to the case involving Fr. Murphy, and for failing to do the basic courtesy of contacting him or checking the accuracy of quotations erroneously attributed to him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments No Comments »

CALGARY, Alberta, March 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The homosexual activist who has pursued Alberta Pastor Stephen Boissoin on a complaint of discrimination since 2002 has re-launched his campaign after a December court defeat, taking his case to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Dr. Darren Lund is appealing the December 4th  Court of Queen’s Bench decision by Justice Earl C. Wilson, who overturned a 2008 ruling against Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). …

The battle continues…

Comments No Comments »

Absolutly splendid. Read all of it….

Honourable Senators,

I rise to call the attention of the Senate to the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada. There could scarcely be a more important issue than this. “Freedom of speech is, and always has been, the bedrock of our Canadian democracy.

The great Alan Borovoy, who was the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for more than forty years, calls freedom of speech a “strategic freedom”. Because it is the freedom upon which all of our other freedoms are built. For example, how could we exercise our democratic right to hold elections, without free speech? How could we have a fair trial, without free speech? And what would be the point of freedom of assembly, if we couldn’t talk freely at a public meeting? It is the most important freedom. Indeed, if you had all of your other rights taken away, you could still win them back with freedom of speech.

Benjamin Franklin once said that “Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech” Freedom of speech is embedded in Parliament’s DNA. The word Parliament itself comes from the French word, parler – to speak.

And as Parliamentarians, we guard our freedom jealously. No Member of Parliament or the Senate may be sued for anything he says in here. Our freedom of speech is absolute. And yet just last week, only a few miles from here, censorship reared its ugly head.

Ann Coulter, an American political commentator, had been invited to speak at the University of Ottawa. But before she even said a word, she was served with a letter from Francois Houle, the university’s vice-president, containing a thinly-veiled threat that she could face criminal charges if she proceeded with her speech. And on the night of her speech, an unruly mob of nearly 1,000 people, some of whom had publicly mused about assaulting her, succeeded in shutting down her lecture, after overwhelmed police said they could not guarantee her safety. Colleagues, it was the most un-Canadian display I have seen in years. It was so shocking that hundreds of foreign news media covered the fiasco, from the BBC to the New York Times to CNN. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 2 Comments »

The priest who presided over the canonical trial of the late Father Lawrence Murphy– the priest whose case has prompted heavy media criticism of Pope Benedict XVI– has written a devastating critique of the New York Times account of that case.

Father Thomas Brundage, judicial vicar for the Milwaukee archdiocese at the time of the Murphy trial, reveals that, contrary to the Times report, that canonical trial was never halted– by the Vatican or by the archdiocese– and Father Murphy was a defendant at the time of his death.

Father Brundage reveals that he was never contacted by reporters to verify details of the case, although his name appears on documents about the trial. Moreover, he reports that statements attributed to him in the New York Times article taken from handwritten notes– written not by him but by someone else.

In his critique, which is moderate in tone but devastating in effect, Father Brundage explains that he has come forward with his account for these reasons: 

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;
To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

 (Source)

Time for a retraction and an apology from the liars and anti-Catholic bigots at The New York Times.


Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again. This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

Comments 1 Comment »

PART 1

This is the second instalment in my analysis of The Catholic Register’s recent coverage of the D&P “response” to the ongoing allegations that they are funding pro-abort groups in the Global South…

The document said that LifeSite has an insignificant number of readers and that its reports had minimal impact on D&P fundraising, yet the articles diverted the attention and energy of leadership away from their regular work.

“You have to understand what our staff are going through,” Casey said. He cited threatening, abusive telephone calls at home and postcards of “bloodied, aborted fetuses” in fundraising envelopes.

“Where’s the sanity in this?”  

Many of us are asking the same thing, Mike.  Where is the sanity in funding the enemies of the unborn child?  Have you lost your mind?

The Q&A document explains that the advocacy issue fueling the “attackers” is the matter of “de-criminalization of abortion which remains a highly contentious issue in many societies.”

“It is not a highly contentious issue by Catholic standards,” said Westen. “Apparently Development and Peace believes it is highly contentious.”

Casey pointed out the issue of how closely a Catholic development agency may work with non-Catholic partners that support the decriminalization of abortion is not entirely settled, either among the Canadian bishops or in bishops’ conferences around the world.

Is this some kind of joke, Mike?  Not settled?  Read this paragraph from the Catechism (2273):

The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” CDF, Donum vitae III.

Well, at least we are getting some implicit admissions in Casey’s declaration of the secular legal status of abortion not being “settled” in the Church.  We knew D&P’s committment to human life was bogus and now we have confirmation of it by his outrageous (and quite erroneous) remark!

“What we’re looking for is some guidance here. In our protocols, it is a fact that we do get involved in these situations, if you want to call them that,” he said. These issues have been laid before a four-bishop committee chaired by Toronto Auxiliary Bishop John Boissonneau.  Casey bristled at LifeSite’s concluding that partners who are sometimes two or three times removed from groups that support decriminalization are “pro-abortion” or “abortionist.”       

Two or three times removed? No, Mike. It’s right on your partners’ own websites.  We can all read. We can all point and click.  The jig is up.                      

“Nuance is not their forte,” he said.

Spare me.  On this side of the fence, we are very well versed in the nuances of Catholic morality.  And yet, while we have our nuances down pretty good, you have a serious deficiency in the basic understanding of the Catholic faith’s teaching on abortion and co-operation with its advancement, as evidenced by your grossly ignorant view of the State’s obligation to protect innocent human life.

D&P ABORTION SCANDAL VIDEO & INDEX PAGE

Comments No Comments »

Original False and Misleading Article by The New York TimesVatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys (Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times)

Last week, The New York Times implicated Pope Benedict XVI in an alleged cover-up by accusing Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the time, of stopping a canonical trial of a notrious child abuser-priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy.  Even though no decision was made by Cardinal Ratzinger himself, the implication is that he, as the ultimate authority on the question, was ultimately responsible in stopping this canonical trial.  The New York Times article makes the following allegation:


But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.  (Source)

The New York Times article states that Archbishop Bertone “halted the process”.  Yet, this statement is simply not true and represents a distortion and even fabrication of the events. There was never an order by the Vatican to stop the case at all.  In April 1998, there was a recommendation by Archbishop Bertone, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, to implement pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy had no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process because of a number of extenuating circumstances, not the least of which was the frail health of Fr. Murphy.  However, this was only a suggestion on the part of Bertone since the local bishop retained full control on the ultimate decision.  In fact, the next month, the Bishop of Superior rejected Bertone’s suggestion for pastoral measures and began formal canonical proceedings against Murphy.  The case was halted by the local bishop only when it became evident that Murphy was on his death bed i.e. a mere 2 days before Murphy’s death.

So, in other words, it was not the Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger, or Archbishop Bertone who stopped the trial.  It was death — the same death that is currently circling the credibility of The New York Times. 

The real issue here is Pope Benedict’s determination to root out what he once described as the ‘filth’ in the Church.  After Benedict is done with cleaning up our own backyard, perhaps His holiness can help us bloggers clean out the filthy lies and distortions in the main stream media as well.

Other Selected Reading on The New York Times’s Defamation of Benedict


A Response to the New York Times   (Fr. Raymond J. de Souza, National Review Online)

Source of the NY Times story:  The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.  The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him.Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.

The New York Times’s Smear on Pope Benedict: A Defense of the Church’s Conduct in the Murphy Case (John Pacheco, Socon or Bust):

“Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation follow the Church’s canon law at the time? Yes. Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation consider the specifics of the accused’s case i.e. his imminent death and the fact that the civil authorities did not prosecute? Yes. Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation prohibit Murphy from exercising public ministry? Yes. The only thing the future Pope didn’t do is strip him of his priestly faculties before his imminent death, but to do that Murphy would likely have been required to go through a canonical trial…and that’s really the only thing The New York Times and the rest of the anti-Catholic bigots have to complain about…a canonical trial, the nature of which they know little about. The anti-Catholic bigots wanted Joseph Ratzinger to personally wheel Father Murphy into the court on a bed, have the trial drag out and watch him die in front of everyone while the comotose priest offered his defense.   This is the only thing the Pope was guilty of not doing.  It was the “great day of justice” we were all deprived of, according to The New York Times.

Moreover, the Catholic Church is not the only institution which considers the age and health of the accused before deciding whether the accused should stand trial.  Our secular courts do it all the time.  Even notorious war criminals are given a pass on this front


A Papal Conversion (John Allen, NCR):

To understand that, it’s necessary to wind the clock back a decade. Before then, no Vatican office had clear responsibility for cases of priests accused of sexual abuse, which instead were usually handled — and often ignored — at the diocesan level. In 2001, however, Pope John Paul II assigned responsibility to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s all-important doctrinal office, which was headed by Joseph Ratzinger, then a cardinal. As a result, bishops were required to send their case files to Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. By all accounts, he studied them with care, making him one of the few churchmen anywhere in the world to have read the documentation on virtually every Catholic priest accused of sexual abuse. The experience gave him a familiarity with the pervasiveness of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic Church can claim. And driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as “filth” in the church, Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have undergone a transformation. From that point forward, he and his staff were determined to get something done.One crucial issue Cardinal Ratzinger had to resolve was how to handle the church’s internal disciplinary procedures for abusive priests. Early on, reformers worried that Rome would insist on full trials in church courts before a priest could be removed from ministry or defrocked. Those trials were widely seen as slow, cumbersome and uncertain, yet many in the Vatican thought they were needed to protect the due process rights of the accused. In the end, Cardinal Ratzinger and his team approved direct administrative action in roughly 60 percent of the cases. Having sorted through the evidence, they concluded that in most cases swift action was more important than preserving the church’s legal formalities. Among Vatican insiders, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became the primary force pushing for a tough response to the crisis. Other departments sometimes regarded the “zero tolerance” policy as an over-reaction, not to mention a distortion of the church’s centuries-long legal tradition, in which punishments are supposed to fit the crime, and in which bishops and other superiors have great leeway in meting out discipline. After being elected pope, Benedict made the abuse cases a priority. One of his first acts was to discipline two high-profile clerics against whom sex abuse allegations had been hanging around for decades, but had previously been protected at the highest levels. 


Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis (John Allen, NCR):

“Ratzinger’s top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican “inaction.” Once again, however, those who have followed the story closely have almost exactly the opposite impression….The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming. The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law. Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of “inaction” cannot help but seem, to anyone who’s been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop’s pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.”


The Myth of Pedophile Priests (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing On My Head):

Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

  • Priestly celibacy is not the issue – married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried
  • Most child abuse takes place within the home.
  • All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.  
  • Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.
  • Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.
  • Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend. …


Scoundrel Time(s)(George Weigel, First Things):

The sexual and physical abuse of children and young people is a global plague; its manifestations run the gamut from fondling by teachers to rape by uncles to kidnapping-and-sex-trafficking. In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse. Forty to sixty percent were abused by family members, including stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of a child’s mother—thus suggesting that abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution, the breakdown of marriage, and the hook-up culture. Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Source


Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again. This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

INDEX PAGE

Comments 3 Comments »

The sexual and physical abuse of children and young people is a global plague; its manifestations run the gamut from fondling by teachers to rape by uncles to kidnapping-and-sex-trafficking. In the United States alone, there are reportedly some 39 million victims of childhood sexual abuse. Forty to sixty percent were abused by family members, including stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of a child’s mother—thus suggesting that abused children are the principal victims of the sexual revolution, the breakdown of marriage, and the hook-up culture. Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members).

Rembert Weakland is the emeritus archbishop of Milwaukee, notorious for having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy the demands of his former male lover. Jeff Anderson is a Minnesota-based attorney who has made a substantial amount of money out of sex abuse “settlements,” and who is party to ongoing litigation intended to bring the resources of the Vatican within the reach of contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Yet these two utterly implausible—and, in any serious journalistic sense, disqualified—sources were those the Times cited in a story claiming that, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, had prevented sanctions against Father Lawrence Murphy, a diabolical Milwaukee priest who, decades before, had abused some 200 deaf children in his pastoral care. This was simply not true, as the legal papers from the Murphy case the Times provided on its Web site demonstrated (see here for a demolition of the Times’ case based on the documentary evidence it made available). The facts, alas, seem to be of little interest to those whose primary concern is to nail down the narrative of global Catholic criminality, centered in the Vatican.

(Source)

Source


Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again. This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

INDEX PAGE

Comments No Comments »

From Fr. Dwight Longenecker….

As more pedophile priest scandals blow up across Europe we should be ashamed of the offenders and those who sheltered them and oppressed the victims. The guilty should be weeded out, removed from office and handed over to the civil authorities where they are guilty of crimes. Systems to avoid abuse must be established and rigorously maintained, and victims should be justly compensated for their suffering.

However, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

  • Priestly celibacy is not the issue – married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried
  • Most child abuse takes place within the home.
  • All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments No Comments »

TORONTO, March 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In its April national newsletter, Canada’s national pro-life organization, Campaign Life Coalition, has responded to what it calls the “blistering attack” made against it and LifeSiteNews (LSN) by Development and Peace in a document revealed by LSN on March 17.

The newsletter report states that the D&P document “attempts to demean LifeSiteNews.com, a legitimate news source” and observes that LSN was rebufed in its attempts to engage in dialogue with D&P Executive Director Michael Casey who told LSN, “we are not at present prepared to engage in a dialogue as you propose.” Read the rest of this entry »

Comments No Comments »

Here is my response to The Catholic Register’s editorial on Development & Peace’s outrageous and slanderous response:

For more than 40 years Canadians have been fortunate to have the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace rolling up its sleeves on their behalf to deliver aid to some of the poorest regions on Earth. But somewhere along the way D&P seems to have lost its way.

How else to explain a bizarre D&P document recently leaked to the public that is rife with misrepresentation and distortion as it disparages the respected Catholic pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition? How else to explain the hypocrisy of D&P itself resorting to an ugly smear campaign when just a year ago the overseas development agency was crying foul over alleged assaults on its integrity that, they cried, were fuelled by slander and unfounded accusations?

Indeed, but the question is not so much about D&P’s “hypocrisy”.  The question is about getting them to admit the truth.  The accusations are not unfounded. They are as “founded” as you can possibly get.   And yet, over a year later, we are still no closer to getting this scandal resolved.  Where are the bishops?

The document is a 10-page letter that, according to D&P executive director Michael Casey, was sent to key D&P stakeholders to refute allegations contained in a series of online articles about D&P published last March and April on a prominent pro-life web site.

So you prepare a document which is false and spread it around to your “stakeholders”?  For what purpose? So your “stakeholders” can keep believing a lie? 

Casey said the document was intended for internal use only but “regrettably, unfortunately,” it has become public.

Internal use?  Baloney. It was written for anyone who wanted to read a detailed response from D&P to the evidence arrayed against them.

The issue, though, is not that the document became public. What is regrettable and unfortunate is that the overseas development arm of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops would resort to name-calling, concoction, half-truths and, a lawyer might argue, defamation, to undermine the difficult work of Canada’s most effective anti-abortion organization.

It was defamation.  They’re lucky they’re not getting sued.

The most contentious D&P claim among several odd statements is an outrageous and unsupportable suggestion that Campaign Life sympathizes with the tactics of radical anti-abortion groups that use violence to achieve objectives. That is patently false, as even Casey has admitted. Yet the D&P document categorically states Campaign Life is a “militant” organization and, almost as odd, is in no way affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Affiliation with the Catholic Church in Canada is hardly a mark of orthodoxy. In point of fact in many areas, departure and opposition to the Church in Canada is a mark of fidelity to what the Church really teaches.

D&P clearly is still smarting from year-old allegations that some of its overseas partners had ties to organizations that support abortion. Those claims appeared in a series of articles on  LifeSiteNews.com, a strident family-issues web site founded by Campaign Life.

A “strident family-issue issues web site”?   Well, if we had to rely on the mainstream Catholic press to get to the bottom of the abortion advocacy that the Catholic Church has been financing in the global south, just where the hell would we be?  Better “strident” and “militant” than “lapdog” and “negligent”, if you ask me.

It’s surprising that D&P has chosen to rehash that old dispute. Last summer, a bishop’s report on those allegations — a report woefully bereft of detail — exonerated D&P of wrongdoing. Regrettably, though, the bishops failed to explicitly address evidence that raised worrisome questions about five specific D&P partners in Mexico. Therefore, in many minds, the issue was unresolved. Since then more unsettling claims about D&P partners in other countries have surfaced.  So it seems imprudent for D&P to be suggesting now that all of last year’s allegations were unfounded and the result of a smear campaign against them. And very odd, indeed, to start smearing others and, in the process, re-opening a discussion about its overseas operations.

The critics of D&P would like to have a discussion with the bishops, but the bishops don’t want to have a discussion with us.  And we all know why that is too.  When you don’t want to face the truth, you turn away from those who are presenting the evidence.  That’s the sad reality of the Canadian Church today: cover-up, scandal, and obstinacy.

PART 2


D&P ABORTION SCANDAL VIDEO & INDEX PAGE

Comments No Comments »

From the Ubra-Liberal, National Catholic Reporter: Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis

The New York Times Op-Ed:  A Papal Conversion

A Response to the New York Times   by Father Raymond De Souza:

“…The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry….”

______________________

The New York Times has sunk to a new low in journalistic depravity.  Half truths, missing critical information, innuendo, suspect sources.  This thing is going to turn against them. I hope it’s the last nail in the coffin that brings this liberal rag down once and for all!

Comments No Comments »

TORONTO, March 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Register, published out of Canada’s largest diocese, has denounced Development and Peace for its document, revealed by LifeSiteNews on March17, that disparaged LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) and the international pro-life movement in general. The Register also published a report by Deborah Gyapong in the same edition that included comments by D&P executive director Michael Casey confirming that D&P did in fact send to D&P stakeholders the harshly worded document that Casey said was “regrettably, unfortunately” made public. 

The Register lead editorial, titled “Poor Judgement” and dated March 25 on its website, states, “D&P seems to have lost its way. How else to explain its bizarre document recently leaked to the public that is rife with misrepresentation and distortion as it disparages the respected Catholic pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition.”

CLC, which reports that it has clarified to the Register that it is not a Catholic organization, has vigorously reacted to the D&P document with an article in its April newsletter.

 The Register editorial goes on to bluntly question, “How else to explain the hypocrisy of D&P itself resorting to an ugly smear campaign when just a year ago the overseas development agency was crying foul over alleged assaults on its integrity that, they cried, were fuelled by slander and unfounded accusations?”

The editorial makes serious charges against D&P stating, “What is regrettable and unfortunate is that the overseas development arm of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops would resort to name-calling, concoction, half-truths and, a lawyer might argue, defamation, to undermine the difficult work of Canada’s most effective anti-abortion organization.

“The most contentious D&P claim among several odd statements is an outrageous and unsupportable suggestion that Campaign Life sympathizes with the tactics of radical anti-abortion groups that use violence to achieve objectives. That is patently false, as even Casey has admitted. Yet the D&P document categorically states Campaign Life is a ‘militant’ organization… “

The CCCB report on the initial LifeSiteNews articles revealing involvement in abortion advocacy by five D&P Mexican “partners” is referred to in the editorial as “a report woefully bereft of detail.” It explains, “Regrettably, though, the bishops failed to explicitly address evidence that raised worrisome questions” about the D&P partners. “Therefore, in many minds, the issue was unresolved. Since then more unsettling claims about D&P partners in other countries have surfaced.”

While explaining that the additional claims appeared in “a series of articles on LifeSiteNews.com“, the editorial takes somewhat of a swipe at LifeSiteNews in referring to it as a “strident family-issues web site,” rather than the respected international life, family and culture issues news service that most international life and family organization leaders consider it to be.

The editorial concludes by charging, “it seems imprudent for D&P to be suggesting now that all of last year’s allegations were unfounded and the result of a smear campaign against them. And very odd, indeed, to start smearing others and, in the process, re-opening a discussion about its overseas operations. “

The article by Deborah Gyapong regarding the D&P document, said by the Register to include “name-calling, concoction, half-truths” and “defamation” of the pro-life groups, is provocatively titled, “D&P, LifeSite rev up their online war“.  

Campaign Life Coalition national organizer Mary-Ellen Douglas, who emphasized to LifeSiteNews that CLC is a pro-life, rather than “anti-abortion” organization, since it acts on a wide variety of life and family issues beyond abortion, said to Gyapong of the D&P document, “The language is hateful.” 

The Register also reports that “Campaign Life has consistently and steadfastly denounced violence throughout its 32 years,” which is the identical emphasis that LifeSiteNews has reflected in its news reports on the issue since its founding in 1997.    

Comments No Comments »

Last week, The New York Times released a hit-piece against the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), for failing to act against a Wisconsin priest, Fr. Larry Murphy, who was accused of molesting an estimate 200 boys over a 20 year period.

Let us consider a few general facts about the source before we consider the case at hand.  The New York Times is a liberal paper which promotes liberal positions like abortion and among other socially liberal causes.  In fact, in its not too distant past, the Paper has been caught red-handed manufacturing facts and manipulating statistics to push its ubra-liberal agenda.   Its anti-Catholic sensibilities have also been well documented, recognized and denounced.  Of course, being an extremely liberal publication or having a history of manipulations does not, in itself, mean that their current report on the Pope is necessarily wrong.  But it does mean that readers should recognize the source’s well-established bias and critically assess each fact and the weight The Times places on each fact in relation to ALL of the facts and wider context. 

Let us now turn to the facts of the case at hand.

The allegation against Fr. Murphy spanned 20 years, from 1955-1974, according to The Times’s article.  The Vatican was informed of the problem in 1996, over 40 YEARS after the first allegations were made and over 20 years since the last abuse was reported. During the time of the actual abuse, the local dioceses did not discipline the priest, which was their total prerogative, nor did they inform the Vatican during this time.

When the Vatican did decide to issue a decision on the matter, it looked at a number of issues.  Let’s look at a few of them:

1. Every person who is accused of something has a right to a fair trial.  One of the ways we protect genuine rights of the accused is to have a statute of limitation – a time period after which no charges can be laid because of the quality or quantity of evidence which may be lacking to form a fair judgement.   That is true in our secular courts as it is within the Catholic Church’s Canon Law which also has its own statute of limitation to protect the accused.  The Church’s canon law originally had stipulated 10 years which would have been applicable in Murphy’s case.  Only recently has the Church dropped the Statute for these sexual abuse cases.

2. It is also standard practice for the Church to forgo these kinds of trials if the accused is elderly and in frail health.  In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. In fact Father Murphy died just four months later.  Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial.  But in the case of Murphy, there was no such request to drop the case, as falsely stated by the Times:

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false. The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry. (Source)

Moreover, the Catholic Church is not the only institution which considers the age and health of the accused before deciding whether the accused should stand trial.  Our secular courts do it all the time.  Even notorious war criminals are given a pass on this front

3.  Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, also pointed out that  civil authorities had dropped their investigation without filing charges.  This means that the same evidence that was required of the civil court would also be required in a canonical court to prove guilt.  This would have represented, in addition to the elderly and frail health issue, yet another impediment in securing a guilty verdict in a canonical trial.

4. Instead of having a messy trial and watching Father Murphy keel over dead in his defendant seat, the Vatican ordered the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer.  This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican’s inquiry in this case.  That’s what we call the “money-point”.  If then-Cardinal Ratzinger had permitted this priest to continue in his public ministry, that would have been an entirely different matter.  But as it stands, the Church had only two choices regarding Murphy.  Remove him from public ministry and let him live out his remaining days to reflect on his heinous crimes, or remove him from public ministry and let a sickly and old man (who died four months later) go through with a canonical trial.   Cardinal Ratzinger chose the former option, for the obvious reasons noted above and probably for other very good reasons which are unknown to us.  Before the avalanche of child-abuse in society, there was a time when giving public scandal was a real concern to society.  The serious consequences of exposing an accused person publicly had obviously negative consequences to the victims too, and had to be weighed against the good that meting out public justice would do.  Today, of course, that is no longer as compelling an argument, but it was back then. (Let me remind my readers that abuse by priests is still rare and much less than it is with secular authorities like teachers and other school employees.)

5.  Pope Benedict XVI can hardly be accused of being lax on cleaning up the Catholic Church. In fact, that’s part of the very reason why this smear campaign has started against him.  The Catholic Church’s critics are not really concerned with “the children”. They’re concerned about Benedict’s “conservative and reactionary doctrine”, and the success he is having in promoting it within the Catholic Church.  Benedict’s enemies within the Church and outside of it want to take him down.   And half-truths and pretexts, as The Times article shows, will do just fine indeed.   As Archbishop Vincent Nichols reminded everyone a few days ago,  Benedict is not part of the problem, he is part of the solution:  “When he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statue of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders. He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words” (Source).   And, then there is Cardinal Shoenborn’s testimony:

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, in defence of the pope, told ORF Austrian television on Sunday that Benedict wanted a full probe when former Vienna Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer was removed in 1995 for alleged sexual abuse of a boy. But other Curia officials persuaded the then Pope John Paul that the media had exaggerated the case and an inquiry would only create more bad publicity. “[Ratzinger] told me, ‘the other side won’,” Schoenborn said. (Source)

Indeed, to the anti-Catholic bigots who smell blood, these little facts are inconsequential and they certainly don’t require reporting on. 

The bottom line in the “scandal” reported by The New York Times is, once the complete picture is considered, a complete distortion of the reality.

Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation follow the Church’s canon law at the time? Yes.

Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation consider the specifics of the accused’s case i.e. his imminent death and the fact that the civil authorities did not prosecute?   Yes.

Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation prohibit him from exercising public ministry? Yes.

The only thing the future Pope didn’t do is strip him of his priestly faculties, but to do that Murphy would have likely been required to go through a canonical trial…and that’s really the only thing The New York Times and the rest of the anti-Catholic bigots have to complain about…a canonical trial the nature of which they know little about. 

The bigots wanted Joseph Ratzinger to personally wheel Father Murphy into the court on a bed, have the trial drag out and watch him die in front of everyone while the comotose priest offered his defense.   This is the great day of justice we were all deprived of, according to The New York Times.


Clearing Benedict’s Good Name: The New York Times Must Retract Its False Reporting –SIGN THE DEMAND FOR RETRACTION

GoPetition

The New York Times does respond to pressure. It happened before. It can happen again.  This is not a lost cause. Keep praying. Keep up the pressure. Don’t take your eye off the ball!

SEE ALSO: INDEX PAGE

Comments 3 Comments »

For more than 40 years Canadians have been fortunate to have the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace rolling up its sleeves on their behalf to deliver aid to some of the poorest regions on Earth. But somewhere along the way D&P seems to have lost its way.

How else to explain a bizarre D&P document recently leaked to the public that is rife with misrepresentation and distortion as it disparages the respected Catholic pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition? How else to explain the hypocrisy of D&P itself resorting to an ugly smear campaign when just a year ago the overseas development agency was crying foul over alleged assaults on its integrity that, they cried, were fuelled by slander and unfounded accusations?…

(Source)

______________

OTTAWA – A leaked document that accuses Canadian “pro-abortion” groups of being militant, right-wing organizations that associate with violent factions has put the executive director of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) on the hot seat….

(Source)

I will be responding to The Catholic Register’s reports next week.  Finally, we have some straight talk from the “mainstream” Catholic press.  It only took them a year to get around to it.  That’s another scandal, but let’s not quibble. This not a time to criticize but to unite to bring the abortion-marxism juggernaut in the Church down to the ground.

Comments 2 Comments »