oh no the molester church is in trouble again

Cerise said:
So, because I stand up for what is right you are implying that I may have some Xtra testosterone??

That's SEXIST!

It could be considered HATESPEECH!
Click to expand...

Not even in Canada.

*Actually, Cerise..what she said is that RM might've mixed you and her up because you're seemingly the only two active women on OTC right now.
 
I'm joining the molester church, plook me hard!

yeah one of em is as dumb as a bag of hammers!
 
The Pope and the press

Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post
Published: Thursday, April 08, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI was falsely accused two weeks ago by The New York Times. That same false charge was repeated and amplified in the National Post. The facts are now in, and even the Times has corrected itself by rewriting the story. Two weeks later, however, and despite its flaws, the story is reverberating around the world. Indeed, without the Times' accusations, the sexual abuse story would not have dominated Holy Week as it did.

On March 25, the Times set off a worldwide firestorm with a front page story that made an incendiary accusation: "Top Vatican officials -- including the future Pope Benedict XVI--did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit."

Falsehood upon falsehood -- four errors in the first paragraph. First, the case to defrock Father Lawrence Murphy was approved by the "top Vatican officials," was never stopped by anyone in Rome and was ongoing when Murphy died. Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, is not shown in the documents to have taken any decisions in this case. Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years. Fourth, the files were not "newly unearthed"; a general chronology had been released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee years ago, and the documents were released by the archdiocese itself.

The New York Times was guilty of egregiously shoddy reporting -- or worse -- on a story of global implications.

While the case was not new -- the priest died in 1998 -- the charge landed on front pages around the world, including the National Post, because the Pope was supposedly involved. Within days we learned that the Times was false on the facts, suspect in the sources and reckless in the reporting. All of which the paper had to implicitly concede a week later in an extraordinary rewrite by the same author. So what happened? Were the reporter, Laurie Goodstein, and her editors merely careless, genuinely duped or willing collaborators in an orchestrated smear?

The story did not get the extra scrutiny it deserved. The documents on which the story was based did not support the newsworthy charge against the Pope. After the National Post repeated the charges on our front page on March 26, I read all the documents, posted at the Times web-site. I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal, which was immediately linked to all over the world and played a contributing role in exposing the Times story. (It can be found now at fatherdesouza.ca)For those who knew this file, the sources used screamed out for greater scrutiny. The first was Jeffrey Anderson, who gave the documents to Goodstein, a longtime reporter on Vatican affairs who covers the religion beat. Anderson is the most prolific contingency-fee lawyer in suing the

Church, from which he has made tens of millions. He has current civil suits pending against the Vatican. It is in his direct financial interest to promote the public perception of complicity by the Pope. That alone should have prompted Goodstein to examine what the documents showed and to inquire of others whether there were other relevant documents that he did not give her. Instead, her story accepted fully the Anderson spin.
Click to expand...

Read more: Source
 
No offense, but that's an opinion piece. Not news. Less credible since the author is, himself, a priest...
"Father Raymond J. de Souza"

I understand the anger from the writer and we should not forget that these few pedophiles do not make up the entire priesthood of the Catholic Church. There is still good that is being done by clergy for the poor around the world, though I do not support or approve of the doctrine of this religion. I can not dismiss the good with what I consider to be the false promises of their faith. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
..
attachment.php
 
valkyrie said:
No offense, but that's an opinion piece. Not news. Less credible since the author is, himself, a priest...
"Father Raymond J. de Souza"
Click to expand...

well, when you consider that the catholic church has always been and always will be infallible :erm:, it's not really just an opinion piece, now is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top