I will have more thoughts later but please note no mention of the Oakland case is given and the problems with the New York TImes Reporting of that. I also know the “Op-ed” NYT section is different from the news department but they surely let Dowd run free there and had no comment on how she she did not put the Ratzingers quotes in proper context so as to mislead.
The problem is the stories based in the USA is there is no context given. I am not exactly sure why we are hung up on issues of Lacization which is pretty much just officially for Canon Law persons moving someone from the Priest to the Lay State though for all purposes they do remain a Priest because the Church cannot change that. The “defrocking” occurs when they are removed from public ministry for all purposes. SOmething that the TIMES still does not make clear.
In his defense of the Times he does not also adress the obvious. That the Vatican was facing real time troubles with an offical trial.
Criminal and civil cases can go on for years in the Secualr system but for some reason people are shocked that these things took time as to Lacizations(which I am not sure why we are getting hung up on that) in the Church

Beating a dead horse. There’s a reason the chart for the NYT looks like this.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/02/new-york-times-14.html

Priests will be priests. Wink wink.

Talk about a pile of self-serving drivel.
According to the experts on abuse in public schools it is sky-high there when compared to abuse in the Church. But few realize it because the Times has its reporters and writers too busy chasing down every alleged wrongdoing lead involving the Church and then printing even the specious stories with a biased negative spin.. They apparently don’t have time to even look out their front door to do a little investigative reporting on schools. That issue was mentioned in only a few words by Hoyt, and then was immediately brushed off.
And we are told Times’ reporter Lauries Goldstein is digging out her own info–not just acting as a mouthpiece for the lawsuit lawyers.
Which means the Times IS assigning reporters to do investigative work on the Church, but apparently NOT assigning investigative reporters to look at the much worse situation in the public schools. Charol Shakeshaft –the country’s leading expert on public school abuse reports that in one survey of 125 teachers that their school systems were certain they were abusers-124 were either kept on staff or palmed off on other school systems. She estimates there will be 4.2 cases of abuse in the public schools over the next few years.
How about letting L. Goldstein spend the same percentage of time investigating the public schools as the percentage of abuse cases they are responsible for. That probably means she should be spending 98% of her time on the schools and 2% of her time on the Church.

Amanda,
Perpetual adolescents will be perpetual adolescents.
Wink wink.

I find it interesting that the New York Times is loved by liberals and constitutionally anchored conservatives for the same reason she is hated by religious conservatives and fans of F AUX-News (OK, that was a tautology):
Her motto: “All the news that’s fit to print”
When I ask conservative Catholics if Jesus took a position on divorce and adultery, they usually are quick to cite chapter and verse. Suits me just fine as, I, too, find both a sin.
When I then ask why they supported Ronald Regan, John McCain and Newt Gingerich – all three of whom divorced their wives – and McCain and Gingerich not only committed adultery but also left women who were gravely ill or crippled, the answer is always, “they are doing the Lord’s work and we are not to judge”.
When I ask why, if all sins weaken the Christian body equally (assuming being gay is a sin, I know it isn’t), religious conservatives invest millions of dollars and so much energy in stripping gays of our civil rights while not a penny is spent on the far more frequent sins of divorce, adultery, greed, injustice, etc., the answer is always that they are planning to, just, this one sin takes up all their energies and resources. Many actually say we are a special group of sinful people and must be fought with all the resources available….
Uh-huh, yeah, right. I can see how my monogamous marriage and partnership of over a quarter of a century is such a threat while leaving your wife who stood by you throughout your captivity because she is disfigured and crippled is Christlike. (John McCain)
I fully follow the logic of serving divorce papers on your wife who is dying of cancer in the hospital so you can marry the, um, “lady”, you’re having an affair with. (Newt Gingerich, but only one of his divorces, not both).
Totally logical, absolutely the proper Christian position and grounds for all Catholics to vote for John and Newt.
So now, when a real news organization pursues a genuine story, religious conservatives get their feelings bruised.
The hypocrisy and false witness at work here is beyond belief.
My subscription to the NY-Times will definitely be renewed when it expires, and their willingness to follow a news story where ever it leads is the reason.

I’m old enough to remember how, in the 1952 election campaign, Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic nominee was pilloried by pulpit and press (including the NYT) because he was divorced; not remarried, just divorced. I find a bit of wry amusement that the first president to be both divorced and remarried was the most conservative since Hoover.

Can anyone explain the case in Germany that this piece refers to? I was happy to learn more about the Oakland case and that the mainstream media was wrong about Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger).
But, what about the Germany case? Does anyone have any more information about that?

Deacon Greg, Thank you for your fearless faith. The NYT is not the problem. Fear is the problem.

NO!!!
Child-raping is the “problem”. NO wonder the ‘religious’ aren’t respected – they’be got their priorities real screwed-up. (N.B. Panthera’s excellent post – April 26, 2010 2:49 AM.)

Panthera,
Being gay is a sin. It’s called the Church Magisterium and doctrine. Look it up.

Roman…
Being gay in and of itself is not a sin. Engaging in gay sex, however, is a sin. So, for that matter, is engaging in heterosexual sex outside of marriage.
From the catechism:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Dcn. G.

I call it people with same-sex tendencies actually. And farther more I’m talking about those who embrace homosexual-behavior that is. Thanks for the clarification.

Deacon,
Don’t take this personally, but your site seems to be more of a people’s magazine than a Catholic blog.

Deacon Kandra,
Thank you. I am genuinely more outraged by the hatred and nastiness heaped on Christians who – while not in agreement with full human and civil rights for gays – at least try to follow the catechism.
Of Southern Baptists, we expect nothing but hatred. Their whole church was founded, after all, to fight civil rights and human status for Negroes.
Of Mormons we expect very little – their religion is to Christianity what Abba’s singing is to English: There is a vague similarity.
Of Catholics, however, we expect considerably better than the hatred and exploitation of victims which is echoed through every discussion blog and forum throughout the internet.
By providing this venue for discussion, I think you have done more to highlight the importance of focussing on the victims and not on useless finger pointing than you realise.
A necessary, secondary beneficial effect of these discussions is that Christians who are not directly involved in civil rights for all get to see just exactly what level of hatred, contempt and sheer evil we face from so much of the Christian world.
It’s a sad irony – the greatest nastiness is reserved for Christians like you, like Gerard Nadel and for us gays and the transgender.
What did you quote from the catechism again:
at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace
I guess those directions fall into the same category for conservative Christians as do Jesus’ words on divorce and adultery: It’s only a sin if one’s political enemies do it.

Mrs. Moore,
About the Munich case and Archbishop Ratzinger…
When Pope Benedict was archbishop of Munich, the bishop of Essen diocese asked if a priest who had committed abuse could be housed in Munich while he underwent psychological therapy. Ratzinger approved. After the therapy, the vicar (Msrr. Gruber) in charge of priest personell placed him in a parish with out the knowledge of Archbishop Ratzinger. Many years later, after Ratzinger was no longer in Munich, the priest committed abuse again. There is quite a bit of misinformation about this case in the media.The following from the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung helps to clear some things up:
“So what did Ratzinger know about the paedophile priest being assigned to pastoral care? Nothing, Gruber asserts. When the case had become public in March, Gruber already had taken responsibility. And he reaffirms his statement in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
This Monday the SPIEGEL reported that Gruber possibly had been coerced by the current leadership of the Archdiocese to come to the Pope’s defence. But this is not true, Gruber says. It was only him and Friedrich Fahr, the personnel officer at the time, who decided to assign H. to a parish. Fahr died in 2007. “It is quite plain to me that a dead witness is not very convincing”, Gruber says. So there is just his word, since the Pope cannot be interrogated about it.
But why did the personnel officer and the vicar general assign H. to a parish? …He himself chose the parish… because he was well acquainted with the parish priest…. who is deceased as well, was to look out for H. “, states Gruber.
H. had been assigned „just as an auxiliary priest“ by Gruber „out of his official authority“. This term is important to Gruber. He was irritated when the Archdiocese made public that Gruber acted „without authority“. That sounded like abuse of position, says the octogenarian. But canonical law explicitly states that it is within the vicar general’s rights to act thusly.
Gruber shared his resentment over the false terminology with a friend he made while studying at the roman seminary “Germanicum“. This friend wrote an email newsletter which soon circulated between the “Germanicum“ alumni. The chancery had exerted pressure on Gruber, the email said.
But Gruber claims to have been thoroughly misunderstood. Speaking to his friend by telephone he explained to him that “we all were under time pressure“ because a press release had to be prepared March 12th after the SZ [this newspaper] had inquired at the Chancery regarding the case of Father H. After having heard of the circular mail, Gruber himself sent a letter dated April 8th to his study colleagues in order to correct “some grave misinformation”.
Facing the same problem today he would handle the case H. differently, says Gruber, not least because of the Episcopal guidelines [established in 2002]. But at the time there were no mandatory regulations how to handle priests with a paedophile disposition and so the dioceses just “helped out one another” in order to “give those people a chance”, as Gruber formulates. Therapy would bring everything in order, people believed then. “We all believed that this could be repaired“.

“I guess those directions fall into the same category for conservative Christians as do Jesus’ words on divorce and adultery: It’s only a sin if one’s political enemies do it.”
If it’s a liberal, he/she gets away with it Scott Free. But if it’s a conservative, the press is all over it. And that’s what’s wrong with your statement.

Eka,
I think that was a reasonably correct restating of the current information being circulated by serious German newspapers and magazines.
It is, perhaps, worth adding two points.
One, dispite what Rod Dreher and others frequently post on beliefnet, many Germans, especially in Bavaria, are very devout Catholic Christians and many others are very devout non-Catholic Christians.
Second, A large part of the outrage in the German media is driven by recent history. Over the course of the last several decades there have been a few high-profile (Germany has a very low incidence of physical crime relative to the US, so any physical transgression is taken far more seriously by the media and the public) cases of young girls being raped and murdered.
In each case, authorities sound found out that the monster involved had been “treated” and released.
Today, Germans look these monsters away. They are treated humanely, but never permitted to roam the streets again.
The outrage in Germany can’t be channelled into attacks on the civil and human rights of gays as conservative Catholics are doing in the US. The matter has caught the Catholic church rather like a deer in the headlights, though the deer is rather a bit more innocent.
There is, of course, the tertiary factor that most Christians in Germany felt (and feel) that Ratzinger was good as head of the inquisition but less well equiped with the social graces necessary for Bishop of Rome.
And that is the last aspect which American conservative Catholics totally overlook about Germany and Europe: Yes, B16 is the pope. To Europeans, including Catholics, he is pre-eminently the Bishop of Rome. A difference in perspective which I can’t begin to explain to Americans.

Romancrusader,
What planet do you live on and do they have Fox news?
Do you really want me to list all the conservative politicians and oh-so-”Christian” leaders who have been caught having sex with everyone but their wives in the last years?
I’ll be happy to. Be careful what you say, there are a lot of decent people around here who do not equate being Catholic with worshipping the false idols of Faux news.
Goodness! The illiteracy is mind boggling!
Talk about epistemic closure!

“The outrage in Germany can’t be channelled into attacks on the civil and human rights of gays as conservative Catholics are doing in the US.”
Interesting how so many self-processed “Catholics” deny that men and boys are the same sex. “It can’t be homosexual!!!!” is their mantra. We have fallen down the rabbit hole. Our society is so sex-saturated it’s not even funny. It is NOW coming out and the Usual Suspects are beginning their Homophobe chant.
The secular media who HATE us and the TRUTH as preached by the Holy Catholic Church and the Homosexual Lobby groups such as Act Up-who are terrified that the reality of predatory homosexual abuse will become clear to all, even the mouthbreathers.

“What planet do you live on and do they have Fox news?”
Irrelevant.
“Do you really want me to list all the conservative politicians and oh-so-”Christian” leaders who have been caught having sex with everyone but their wives in the last years?”
Sounds like pro-abortion mantra if you ask me. Ho-hum here come the pro-choicers yet again.
“I’ll be happy to. Be careful what you say, there are a lot of decent people around here who do not equate being Catholic with worshipping the false idols of Faux news.”
I’m afraid you proceed from a false assumption. I have nothing to do with Foxnews and don’t even watch it. Interesting, I make an observation and you attempt to change the subject.
Goodness! The illiteracy is mind boggling!
“Talk about epistemic closure!”
This is bad comedy Panthera.

“To Europeans, including Catholics, he is pre-eminently the Bishop of Rome. A difference in perspective which I can’t begin to explain to Americans”
While he is the Bishop of Rome, he is primarily the Pope. If Europeans don’t understand that, their perspective is skewed.
As for the church preaching hatred towards homosexuals, I have never seen that in print. The official Catechism says something quite different does it not?

“As for the church preaching hatred towards homosexuals, I have never seen that in print. The official Catechism says something quite different does it not?”
Conservative,
Panthera, likes to play the victim and spread around the rediculous assertion that the Church persecuted gays.

Panthera,
I sincerely regret that there is so much emphasis today (not necessarily on the part of the church) on her teaching regarding homosexuality. I believe that this leads to a tremendous amount of confusion among the faithful and pain for those who are homosexual.
The church does NOT teach that homosexual attraction is in itself sinful. While the church certainly does teach sexual activity among homosexuals is (along with ALL sex outside of marriage), it does not claim that this sin is greater than other sins…in fact one could argue that sexual sins are lower on the list of gravity. PRIDE is considered far more serious…and judging from comments on this and other websites (myself included) it is far more rampant and dangerous to one’s holiness.
Last week in Malta, Pope Benedict spoke directly to a young man who told him about the suffering of those people who are on the outskirts of the church and don’t fit into stereo-typed roles including those with a different sexual orientation. He said ”We understand that our way of life puts the Church in an ambiguous position, yet we feel that we should be treated with more compassion – without being judged and with more love.”
The pope responded:
…God loves every one of us with a depth and intensity that we can hardly begin to imagine….God rejects no one. And the Church rejects no one. Yet in his great love, God challenges all of us to change and to become more perfect.
Panther, I am truly sorry for your suffering. As a believer, I accept the teachings of the gospel, though I find them very challenging and continue to fail to live up to the ideals that Christ proposed. But with His grace, all things are possible.

Panthera,
“I find it interesting that the New York Times is loved by liberals and constitutionally anchored conservatives for the same reason she is hated by religious conservatives and fans of F AUX-News (OK, that was a tautology)”
Honestly, I have no general opinion of the NYT. It is one of many papers that I don’t read. But I do have an opinion about the NYT coverage of abuse in the Catholic Church. I do not have a low opinion of that coverage because I have a low opinion of the paper, I have a low opinion of the coverage because it has been demonstrably uninformed, incomplete, misleading and factually incorrect.
As to the rest, that is quite a strawman. Honestly, the only times I bump up against these “Conservative Christians” that you so despise is in rare occurrences on the internet. It’s a red herring. What some Reagan-supporter thinks about divorce has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the NYT’s reporting about abuse in the Catholic Church has journalistic integrity. What some Gingrich supporter thinks about gay rights has nothing to do with whether or not Catholic teaching on homosexual acts is true.
Honestly, as time goes on, I have come increasingly to feel that you can judge someone’s orthodoxy by their adherence to a political party or ideology. The more fiercely they hold to a political party or ideology, the less orthodox they are. Whether it’s left or right doesn’t matter.

Benedict is pope and bishop of rome…but his papacy is primary.

I never said nor even implied that European Catholics dispute his primacy.
Devotion over here in Western Europe (which stops very suddenly, indeed, at the eastern Polish border) is interpreted differently than by conservative American Catholics.
My very oldest and closest friend still has a picture of JPII in his bedroom, he and his wife paid an enormous sum of money, er, made considerable charitable contributions, to receive and audience with him many years ago.
As good Catholics, they acknowledge the authority of B16, but there is no warmth and adoration of him as of JPII.
I’m not Catholic, though I am a Christian. The only pope in the last few hundred years towards whom I have any genuine warmth was Roncalli. If you conservative Catholics take the distinct lack of delight you experience on thinking upon him and apply that the Western European Catholics’ feelings for B16, you’ll be pretty close.
Anyway, I don’t have a dog in that fight.
It’s funny, but I sometimes wonder whether conservative Americans would be less so certain of their news sources if they were able to read, really read other languages. I follow both conservative and liberal weekly news magazines in US English, UK English, German and (to the extent my command of the language permits, the Vatican’s take on things in Italian.)
It just plain is foolish to dismiss the NYTimes just because they are to ones left. Most competent journalists are going to be to the left of most conservative American Christians on most issues of current import.

Eka,
Thank you. It is always nice when somebody who doesn’t agree with my monogamous, faithful, true, loyal, loving and now over one-quarter century partnership and legal marriage can disagree without screaming at me.
It’s funny, really it is. Here we have an entire group of people – between 4 and 10% of the population, depending on whom you believe, asking for their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights to be respected. That’s all.
We want to be able to live with our partners in the same security as the state grants to married heterosexuals – accepting the same restrictions and requirements as are imposed by marriage on heterosexuals.
And for that, we are misused…all, of course, in the name of Christ.
That’s not the Christianity I grew up in and practice.
This is not the forum to discuss the matter, but an enormous amount of good work by competent theologians calls the so-called “biblical” injunctions against gay marriage very much into question.
Regardless of our differences here, the hatred and vilification are not doing the Christian body any good. They do serve one purpose – when Christians who are more concerned with their own state of grace than persecuting others read these forums, nothing I say could be more persuasive of the need for separation of church and state than the venom flowing from conservative Catholics and other conservative Christians here.

As good Catholics, they acknowledge the authority of B16, but there is no warmth and adoration of him as of JPII..wrote Panthera.
I don’t see the relevance of this statement. Many did not feel the warmth of Jesus nor did they adore Him. It never stopped Him from speaking the truth. Benedict has a different personality that his predecessor. So what?

I have great respect for you Panthera…but I would have to say that there is arrogance and “venom flowing” freely from all idealogical sides in this debate. If we are to be a truly civil society we must ALL (again, I include myself in this) acknowledge how we contribute to the discussion and how we judge others.
As for Benedict, many Catholics who have been familiar with his teachings and his actions have great affection for him…even in spite of his attempts to draw attention away from himself and towards the real and proper focus…Christ.

“I’m not Catholic, though I am a Christian. The only pope in the last few hundred years towards whom I have any genuine warmth was Roncalli. If you conservative Catholics take the distinct lack of delight you experience on thinking upon him and apply that the Western European Catholics’ feelings for B16, you’ll be pretty close.”
What a bunch of historical revisionism. Pope John XXIII was no liberal by any means Panthera. Next time, do your reading before you mouth off about a figure you know NOTHING ABOUT!

….but an enormous amount of good work by competent theologians calls the so-called “biblical” injunctions against gay marriage very much into question. wrote Panthera
Oh really? I highly doubt their “competence”. Based on what have they come to these conclusions?

Troll (Internet)
“Do not feed the trolls” and its abbreviation DNFTT
“What is a troll?”
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun “troll” can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in that was an excellent troll you posted.

Roman Crusader,
My goodness, where did I ever right that Ioannes PP.XXIII was a liberal?
No, my good sir, even if we set aside the entire rest of his enormous body of good works, Pacem in Terris alone would rrequire my deep respect for him.
I am a bit puzzled by your anger and fury. Perhaps a few moments with the above link will help you to understand my abiding respect for him.

oops, “write, not right”. Spelling programs only help if one uses them correctly.
Conservative,
Good question. There is a very large body of work on the verses traditionally used to attack gays.
Would you like a list of books and internet resources in English? The link references one outstanding text on the subject.
Jack Rogers is far from a liberal, progressive Christian but he is devoted to the “tell the truth and shame the devil” side of theology:
Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church
Gerard nadel and I have discussed the various Latin, German, Elizabethan and later English texts of the Bible with limited analysis of Koine (limited by my lack of erudition, not his).
The conclusion we came to was basically (I speak here for myself, not Gerard) that I might be able to prove any one single point or call the current translation into question, but Gerard’s positon was based on the positon of the Pope, not any one specific verse in the Bible.
I hope he will correct me if this brief summary of a nearly two year discussion is wrong.
I certainly do not want to hijack this thread to that end. Something tells me that this topic is not going to go away, even if I and the other liberal Christians were to leave were to leave this forum.

Panthera,
you are no expert on Papacy so don’t pretend to be. and stop pretending to be an expert on the bible.

And by the way Panthera,
John XXIII had nothing but love towards Pius XII and Pius IX since these are two of the popes you don’t feel any warmth towards given your hatred of God and of the Church.

Panthera,
what in Pacem in Terris made you have “warmth” for John XXIII?

Roman Crusader,
I don’t recall every having claimed to be an expert about anything outside of my discipline.
That said, if you had read Pacem in Terris, it should have been obvious to you why I am so deeply impressed. This encyclical, which is addressed to all, not just Catholics, is an outstanding foundation upon which to build a world which recognizes the basic humanity of everyone. It speaks strongly on injustice (especially the injustice of states). It abjures physical violence as a means to an end. It…well, why don’t you actually just sit down and read the text.
How on earth you might come to the conclusion I should hate God is beyond me. I live through Christ’s sacrifice to redeem me of my sins.
Do I hate the Catholic church? No. I am furious about the many injustices, large and small which have been committed by leaders of the Catholic church in the name of Jesus over the centuries.
All you have done today is to insult the Deacon, attack me in the most absurd manner possible and debase the claim of the Catholic church and other conservative Christians that stripping me of my civil rights in America is “Christ-like”. There is nothing, not one iota of Christian charity in you.
Actually, I think you make my case that we need full separation of church and state better than I ever could.

“All you have done today is to insult the Deacon, attack me in the most absurd manner possible and debase the claim of the Catholic church and other conservative Christians that stripping me of my civil rights in America is ‘Christ-like’. There is nothing, not one iota of Christian charity in you.”
How did you ever come to the conclusion that I make the case that Church and state should be separated? There’s nothing in the constitution that says seperation of Church and state. Not one. I didn’t insult anyone actually, just offered fair criticism of the site is all, nothing more and nothing less thank you.
“I don’t recall every having claimed to be an expert about anything outside of my discipline.”
But you said,
“Good question. There is a very large body of work on the verses traditionally used to attack gays.”
and
“Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church”
“Gerard nadel and I have discussed the various Latin, German, Elizabethan and later English texts of the Bible with limited analysis of Koine (limited by my lack of erudition, not his).
The conclusion we came to was basically (I speak here for myself, not Gerard) that I might be able to prove any one single point or call the current translation into question, but Gerard’s positon was based on the positon of the Pope, not any one specific verse in the Bible.
I hope he will correct me if this brief summary of a nearly two year discussion is wrong.”
“I certainly do not want to hijack this thread to that end. Something tells me that this topic is not going to go away, even if I and the other liberal Christians were to leave were to leave this forum.”
why try and beat around the bush?
“Do I hate the Catholic church? No. I am furious about the many injustices, large and small which have been committed by leaders of the Catholic church in the name of Jesus over the centuries.”
I admit sadly enough that there was an anti-semitic attitude in the Church at one time. I don’t deny that. Another thing, is that I don’t deny that there were horrible abuses carried out, yes even by Popes! Boniface VIII was a murderer! And Alexander VI was the Bill Clinton of his era.
Pope John Paul II apologized for all this! And why are you still furious about it though, I’m curious as to why?
Why are you posting so much irrelevant stuff that quite frankly, has nothing to do with the topic at hand?