Speaking of a the the BBC's 'The Big Question' programme where the Pope came under fire and the question of whether he should resign was broached. I find the manner in which 'America' (the national Catholic weekly) deals with it a little dismissive and plays the 'They're all out to get us card' just a little too obviously.
But don't take my word for it, let's read Austen Iverleigh's own words defending Benedict and Rome by pointing to the fact that they have become little more than scapegoats:
"Yesterday two colleagues, Jack Valero of Catholic Voices and Clifford Longley, columnist with The Tablet took part in a BBC TV debate on whether the Pope should resign. The very absurdity of the question and the way they were heckled and disbelieved as they coolly laid out the facts showed that the mechanism was in play. The crowd had made up its mind and anything - including the Protestant prejudice that the papacy was "unbiblical"- was uncritically accepted. Afterwards, a representative of the Protest the Pope coalition accosted Jack and told him he had no right to be defending Benedict XVI in public. Defend the scapegoat when the crowd is of one mind, and you'll pay the price."
Having seen the broadcast, I can understand the sense of indignation on both sides of the fence but the portrayal of the Times (a far more worthy and trustworthy news source) in the article and much of the spin within it leads me to despair that we will see anything good or positive come out of this very sad affair.
It would be good if someone reminded the world that although there most certainly was abuse, long-term covered up, supported by silence and turning of a blind eye and even perhaps supporting it by dint of both action and attitude of those in authority (locally and all the way to the vatican itself) there were, and still are a number of faithful, trustworthy and honourable Priests to be found in the Catholic church. Something we must not allow people to lose sight of. Mind you, Clifford Longley's attestation that before becoming Pope, Ratzinger had tried to deal with the abuse but been stopped by factions within the vatican setup only makes one feel that he might be a good man but the organisation could be institutional flawed and in need of some real zealous cleansing and backside kicking.
I do agree with Iverleigh regardxing those who will seek to make hay whilst the sun shines on their anti-Christian antics and that for some of those who madly rant and hide behind pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific smokescreens are having a field day. Mind you, perhaps Iverleigh, living in his safe and closeted democracy wonderland doesn't realise that here in the UK we have a fine tradition of making citizen's arrests of despots, tyrants and dictators - Benedict will be in quite a large group to have been so recognised and honoured should it occur.
It's sad that James O'Brien demonstrated all the traits that probably make for a fiery radio show but don't do much for clear debate and a shame that Cristina Odone, whom I quite like (especially after the Commonwealth Christmas debacle a while back) but find many Catholics don't, mistook 'reforming' for 'reformation' so it ended on a bit of a damp note.
As for the Pope resigning, I thought this had some precedence in history (the Great Schism of 1378 -1415 when Gregory the twelfth resigned for the good of the Church and even further back when Celestine the fifth issued some bull about Popes being able to resign and then having done it run off to a cave for the remainder of his life. So of course, this is not an unheard of thing but is something that would indicate that Benedict had been the wrong choice and therefore not God's man for the job, which would be a bit worrying.
No comments:
Post a Comment