Friday, July 02, 2010

Tiresome NYTimes Attacks

Once again, the NYTimes has launched another attack on the Catholic Church.

And once again, the NYTimes gets it wrong.

Fr. Z. provides the facts which the Times seems to have forgotten, whether deliberately or not.

1) As is clear from Crimen sollicitationis 1-2, the jurisdiction of the then Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (SSCSO, the name of the present Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF until 1965), only covered solicitation in the context of confession/internal forum, and not other delicts. That is why there are relatively few cases handled at the and SSCSOCDF until the whole system was overhauled.

2) The jurisdiction of the SSCSO/CDF was not immediate. The first instance or immediate jurisdiction remained in the diocese. The SSCSO would only have called a case to Rome if their were some compelling reason, for example, depending on whether the Holy Office even knew about it, or if the diocese couldn’t deal with it. The dioceses had immediate jurisdiction.

While both Fr. Z and I (and a lot of other Catholics) are extremely unhappy with the way things were handled in the 1980's/'90's (and today in some instances), the fact of the matter is that in almost every instance of abuse, the local Bishop failed to do his job. This was the case in Milwaukee; it was the case in Boston; and it was the case in Los Angeles.

5 comments:

Dave said...

I wonder what would happen to the NYT reporter who proposed to write an expose on sexual abuse and coverups in the New York public school system?

Dave said...

I wonder what would happen to the NYT reporter who proposed to write an expose on sexual abuse and coverups in the New York public school system?

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

Yes, Dad, the offending priests should have been either awaiting trial or serving their sentences while waiting for the Vatican to process paperwork. I'd love to hear Cdls. Law or Mahoney pipe up publicly and take the rap that the Pope's taking instead of passively letting the blame drift upward.

GOR said...

The article is a scurrilous attack on the Holy Father. Purporting to be a ‘news article’ it is nothing more than an editorial attack on the Pope - dredging up case after case to make it appear that Pope Benedict was responsible for everything. The writers show little understanding of the difference between revocation of faculties and laicization. They cobble together many ‘facts’ and slant them all against the Pope. They also conveniently dismiss the process of establishing guilt and the rights of the accused to a hearing and to defend themselves - which we also find among some victims’ groups which too often infer proven guilt from the mere existence of an accusation.

But then we have come to expect no less from the NYT.

Dad29 said...

But then we have come to expect no less from the NYT

Nor more, either.