http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/04/the_pope_and_media_bias.html
Bill Donohue says that attacks on the Pope for covering up sex abuse crimes is nothing more than anti-Catholic bigotry:
“One of the hallmarks of bigotry is the collectivization of guilt. By that measure, much of the criticism against the pope has been nothing if not Catholic bashing. From militant atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins indicting the Catholic Church as a "child-raping institution," to newspaper cartoons branding all Catholic clergy as molesters, the evidence is clear that anti-Catholicism is alive and well.”
Bill, has it ever occurred to you that people are angry about the crimes that have been committed? What about Catholics who speak out against the Church? Are we to accuse them of being anti-Catholic? Considering that no one has been properly punished for their crimes I’d say the child-raping priests are getting off pretty easy.
“The vitriol has been unrelenting. Moreover, a bishop was attacked during Easter Mass in Muenster, Germany, and anti-Catholic graffiti were splashed on the walls of a church near Rome. And let's not forget about the calls to storm the offices of the Catholic League that were placed on the Internet, as well as the non-stop hate speech that we've fielded via phone calls, e-mails and letters.”
Violence against bishops should not be condoned. Nonetheless, oh no the horror! How dare people express themselves through graffiti or hateful words! Such actions are *much* worse than raping children. You are standing up for people who have committed crimes. Do you honestly expect the reactions to be civil?
“As I said in a New York Times op-ed page ad recently, the issues of abortion, gay marriage and women's ordination are driving the hatred. Now it is no secret that the vast majority of those working in the mainstream media--especially the most influential outlets--are decidedly liberal. It is not surprising, then, that a portion of this segment is inimical to the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters sexual, and that some are fueled with hatred. To deny this exists is to be in denial.”
Bill is right that there are people, like myself, opposed to the Church for those reasons. This argument ignores the real issue though. Priests-raped-children, if you try to do defend that in any way you are completely twisted.
Leave it to Bill to say that other religious groups wouldn’t have it so tough.
“It is, of course, nonsense to pretend that the media make up stories of priestly sexual abuse. The fault lies squarely with the Catholic Church. But when one institution is targeted among many, and when the window extends back a half-century, those who belong to it may rightly wonder what is going on. To wit: if there were a monistic fixation on sexual abuse in the Jewish community, or in the public schools, Jews and teachers could be excused if they thought they were being put upon.”
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but if the Jewish community was discovered to have committed and then covered up acts of child abuse I wouldn’t let up on attacks until they were brought to justice.
“What makes matters different today is the total lack of evidence that Pope Benedict XVI did anything wrong. Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times has absolutely no proof that the pope knew anything about the infamous Father Lawrence Murphy case (the Wisconsin priest who molested deaf boys). Indeed, this case didn't even reach his Vatican office until 1996 (almost a half-century after the alleged offenses, and fully two decades after Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland knew about it).”
Ok, but what about the priest that worked under him back when he was in Germany? Who the Pope himself was involved in protecting?
Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit that the Church has done wrong? Or would that mean giving up the moral high ground that Bill and his robed heroes are desperately clinging to?
No comments:
Post a Comment