Let us defy the ferocious pack of media dogs who are attacking Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church

The media are beginning to launch a barrage of lies and deeply offensive attacks against Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church which all faithful and loyal Catholics should take a stand against because of our deep love for the Holy Father and for the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. We must follow the example set by Pope Benedict during his visits to the UK and Germany, when he ‘walked through the ferocious pack of media dogs without losing his composure for one second’. We are again witnessing a vicious, anti-Catholic, anti-clerical campaign being whipped up by sections of the illiberal media.

Here are some of the worst examples of the lies and personal attacks against Pope Benedict. Protect the Pope is publishing them so we know our enemy and re-double our prayers to support and protect the Holy Father:

As usual Huffington Post is publishing some of the most vicious attacks on Pope Benedict and the Church.  Michele Somerville, who is described as a poet and teacher and claims to be a Catholic has written a disgusting personal attack on the Holy Father. If Ms Somerville is indeed a Catholic she needs to consider the seriousness of the sins of calumny and detraction:

‘My hunch is that Ratzinger is stepping aside because he has become a liability. He is ultimately responsible for the thousands of incidences of rape and sexual abuse perpetrated against children by priests which came to light via the John Jay College and Cloyne Reports; his best shot at damage control is a “humble” and well-spun departure. If there is anything genuinely humble in this decision, it would be Ratzinger’s willingness to remove a corrupt leader from a church he still loves.’

The truth is that although the Vatican is not very large, it is a sovereign nation. If Ratzinger leaves, I believe, he could find himself arrested. A Vatican official who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity explained the need for Joseph Ratzinger to remain in the Vatican: “Pope Benedict’s decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say.”

I believe and hope and pray that the International Criminal Court will eventually consent to try the Vatican for the systematic abuse of children. I don’t think history will be kind to Joseph Ratzinger. I believe Benedict XVI will go down in church history as a “bad pope,” and as a kind of Abraham who carried his Isaac up the hill ten thousand times, failing to listen when God called out “Stop!”

I believe the Vatican has hit the mattresses. I think the Godfather is taking the fall. Maybe Ratzinger is falling on his sword. Maybe there’s some honor in that.’

[Protect the Pope comment: After almost 8 years of journalists trying the find the smoking gun that proves that Pope Benedict was personally and directly involved in the cover up of child sexual abuse by priests no such evidence has been found. But lack of evidence hasn't stopped them composing the malicious narrative that Pope Benedict is guilty of complicity in the cover up. In the same way that they have blackened the name of Pope Pius XII by repeating the same lies over and over again about 'Hitler's Pope' they are seeking to establish a lie as truth by sheer vitriolic repetition. The blame lies with the priests who committed these appalling crimes and the bishops and vicar generals who were complicit through cover ups and gagging orders. As Pope Benedict wrote in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland, 'It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness.]

Reuters is another news outlet that has the reputation of being a poisonously anti-Catholic and full of hatred towards Pope Benedict XVI. Philip Pullella and Alison Williams have posted a typical Reuters attack under the title, ‘Rome’s gays toast the departure of an unloved pope’:

‘”He was less human than the last one,” said Flavia Servadei, co-owner of “Coming Out” a small bar in Via San Giovanni in Laterano which has been so successful since it opened in 2001 that the road has been renamed “Gay Street”.

This was the most reactionary pope ever, who made homophobia one of his battle cries,” Franco Grillini, founder of Italy‘s biggest gay advocacy group Arcigay, said in a telephone interview. “So his resignation was good news.”

In December, the pope welcomed Ugandan parliament speaker Rebecca Kadaga, one of the proponents of a bill that, in its first draft, sought to impose the death penalty on gays. At the heart of Africa where Catholicism is thriving, the Ugandan parliament is still debating the bill, which no longer has the death penalty clause but would still punish anyone who “abets homosexuality”. The Catholic Church is totally opposed to the death penalty but Grillini blames Benedict for encouraging the developing world to make laws that oppress gays. Under Benedict, Grillini says, the Church has gone to more conservative “extremes” due to the “fierce competition” from radical Islam and evangelical Christianity. “They are trying to stem the competition posed by the religious radicalism of Islam or Christian fundamentalism by adopting the same message … The Catholic Church is squeezed by competition from new religious extremes that I believe represent the real danger in today’s world.’

[Protect the Pope comment: It's not Pope Benedict XVI who has personally invented the Church's doctrine on the immorality of homosexual acts, it has its origins in sacred Scripture and the tradition of the Church over 2,000 years. Just as the immorality of adultery, and masturbation can be found in sacred Scripture.  And the malicious attempt to portray the Holy Father as a homophobic monster who wants to kill gays is a confusion of contradictory assertions. The Ugandan parliament speaker Rebecca Kadaga was in an audience with Pope Benedict. Kadaga is rightly criticised for promoting a bill that sought to legalise the death penalty for homosexuals. The Catholic Church is absolutely against the death penalty. Kadaga's bill no longer contains the clause seeking the death penalty. Pope Benedict is still to blame. This type of journalism is the equivalent of  obscene swearing.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-somerville/no-one-can-know-why-pope-benedict-xvi-resigned_b_2701254.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/19/uk-pope-resignation-gay-idUKBRE91I0UX20130219

 

 

29 comments to Let us defy the ferocious pack of media dogs who are attacking Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church

  • Wake up England

    The Catholic Church is most certainly NOT “absolutely against the death penalty”.
    The Catechism of the Catholic Church says (2266)

    “PRESERVING THE COMMON GOOD OF SOCIETY REQUIRES RENDERING THE AGGRESSOR UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM. FOR THIS REASON THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH HAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS WELL-FOUNDED THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO PUNISH MALEFACTORS BY MEANS OF PENALTIES COMMUNSURATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE CRIME, NOT EXCLUDING, IN CASES OF EXTREME GRAVITY, THE DEATH PENALTY”.

    This is the teaching of the Church. It has always been the teaching of the Church. Perhaps it may change in years to come; but as things are at the moment the Death Penalty is allowed by the Church – whether one likes it or not. William Weber.

    • Michael Petek

      The practical application of the newer teaching on the death penalty is that, if a person is convicted of a capital offence, this should be suspended and a long custodial sentence substituted. If, while incarcerated, the convict participates in a crime which is committed in prison or elsewhere, or seriously interferes with the rehabilitation of other inmates, then the suspension of the sentence of death can be set aside.

      • John Dare

        Wow, thank God I don’t live in the USA then. State and church agreeing that you can hang/gas/inject people.

        • Neither the state nor the church needs to implenent the death penalty in the USA.
          The public are perfectly capable of shooting each other thanks to terminally lax fire arm laws.

          It is ludicrous that the Catholic Church can have a variable point of view on the death penalty but a fixed point of view on, say, abortion. What is the Curia for if it isn’t moral absolutes.

          “And the malicious attempt to portray the Holy Father as a homophobic monster who wants to kill gays is a confusion of contradictory assertions.”

          Well, let’s take a step back from that, shall we? In Barbados the “Soddomy” laws are still in place. Although the penalty does not apply, life imprisonment does. Actually no one’s been convicted for years except some bloke who had anal sex with his wife and got a few years. Does the Catholic Church speak out about this, actively campaign for such laws to be repealed? or turn a blind eye? Or pursue its usual policy of having different policies on different continents and hoping no one invents the internet?

          • Lynda

            A legislature, on behalf of a people, can rationally create criminal offences without provision for sentencing, due, for example, to impracticability of enforcement. Criminal law offences, per se, also have a role in teaching, upholding what is objectively immoral and harmful (to a serious degree) to the individual and society. In this way, they are protective of the good of the individual and of society.

    • Bob Hayes

      2266 does not refer to the death penalty. 2267 of the Catechism on the Vatican website states:

      ‘Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

      If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

      Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”.’

      The quoted clause at the end is from John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.

      But let’s not go down a side road to the thread topic!

  • Lynda

    Christians and people of good will need to stop watching, listening to and reading the anti-faith, anti-life, anti-family Media and turn to reliable Media, support them and develop new independent Media. Refuse to subject yourself to the non-stop propaganda. Walk away. We certainly won’t get anywhere if we continue to support the enemy’s propaganda outlets. Blessed Michael, the archangel defend us, Our Holy Father and our Church.

    • Dr Mark Thorne

      I agree entirely with your comment, Lynda – we shouldn’t support any outlets that perpetuate such calumnious and malicious nonsense about Pope Benedict or the Church.

      I gave up on the secular press a long time ago, and over the course of the last week I’ve also kicked my television into touch. It was such a delight in cancelling the direct debit for my TV licence. The BBC won’t be getting another penny out of me – such a blessed relief.

  • John Dare

    I can see what Lynda’s getting at. Given that the pope is right, because the church is right and things can’t change because that would be against the timeless teaching of the church, there seems little point in even taking notice of the press or public opinion.

    Which raises the question of why even publish such stories on here, or even have the site?

    • Denis

      John can I give one example of why so many media outlets provoke hostility. The Pope is portrayed almost universally as irredeemably bad. Our media portray him as a paedophile enabling monster who is probably also a Nazi sympathiser. Contrast that with the treatment of Margaret Hodge, the woman who whilst in charge at Islington council described an abused child as unreliable, said investigating abuse was a waste of time and called a press investigation gutter journalism. She appeared recently on Question Time and spoke of ” rampant sexual abuse” in the Catholic Church: huge applause and the BBC’s tacit approval. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why I and others have the deepest mistrust of so much of our media and this is just one example amongst many.

      • John Dare

        Hi Denis. I don’t dwell too much on papers that I don’t like, and given what I said above [which simply parrots whats been said ad infintum on here] I can’t see why RC’s would either.

        If the church is right, immutable and continues to be right till the end of time [even when every last man and woman is dust]then why explain, answer or even take notice?

  • Karla

    To those that are accusing Pope Benedict of covering up abuse – provide evidence he has. I have never seen solid evidence be provided.

    This is libellous but the Vatican will not sue

  • Genty

    I can’t help but think that the vitriolic attacks are due in great part to an underlying racism which has caricatured Pope Benedict as a “typical”, rigid German, compared with a “heroic” Pope John Paul II from Poland which suffered much under the jackboot. The shadows of WWII are long and if you can’t quite get Benedict for the N-word, you simply accuse him of other unspeakable crimes.

  • Joseph Matthew

    Deacon Nick, I agree with all that you say. Interesting that two topics covered are child abuse and homosexuality. We now know from reports coming out of Australia and the US that over 80% of clerical abuse victims are adolescent males.

  • “A legislature, on behalf of a people, can rationally create criminal offences without provision for sentencing, due, for example, to impracticability of enforcement. Criminal law offences, per se, also have a role in teaching, upholding what is objectively immoral and harmful (to a serious degree) to the individual and society. In this way, they are protective of the good of the individual and of society.
    …..”

    So why isn’t adultery a criminal offense?

    I’ve posed an open and fairly binary question – taking the death penalty out the equation …or indeed any penalty … – does the Catholic Church
    A) Still believe homosexuality or homosexual acts should be a criminal offense
    B) Campaign to crimnalises homosexuality anywhere in the world

    If the answers to A and B are Yes and Yes then I dont think the Pope can moan too much about being described as a homophobic monster.

    As to the blackening of Pius XII’s repuation and the racist taunts the Benedict XVI has had to put up with I dont think they’re morally acceptable. Two wrongs dont make a right.

    • Nicolas Bellord

      I think Lynda is concentrating on the theoretical possibilities as to what can be legislated for. However the answer to both your questions is undoubtedly NO. By the way adultery is unlawful but not criminal in English law.

  • Spesalvi23

    Honestly, does anybody actually take the mainstream media serious??!
    The average journalist is incapable of comprehending anything related to religion!
    They’re simply insufficiency educated and actually don’t give a da**.
    Many are ideologically blinded and have not ever heard the word objective.
    Copy and paste seems rather popular amongst them.
    Give them a book on theology, they’ll give you a blank stare in return.
    Most writing is shallow and biased to such a degree where it becomes comedic!
    I frequently fall over laughing when I read their sad attempts of reporting on religious matters.

    Joseph Ratzinger is Bavarian; rigid and Bavarian doesn’t match.
    He’s disciplined, reserved, straight forward, thorough and a genuine Workaholic.
    He lacks many of our German ‘qualities’ which sometimes would have come in handy with dealing with dissent.

    I’ve read so many rondetful pieces of admiration and esteem.
    Those comedic pieces by those under-educated want-to-be journalists are irrelevant!

  • Lynda

    Your conclusions don’t speak to the premise (besides being gratuitously offensive). It is wholly supportable by reason that a legitimate legislature could determine to outlaw adultery as it satisfies the criteria, prudential aspects being applied, of course. However, the legislature would have to decide according to the objectively rational (just) rules for passing laws according to the Constitution (written or unwritten) given by the People to themselves. However, sodomy is of a greater order of evil (contravention of the Natural Law) than adultery, as the act in itself is intrinsically disordered. It is a matter of reason. A person who (irrationally) refuses to recognise the Natural Law won’t follow the reason. However, to be consistent, such a relativist could not make a moral judgment on a criminal offence which accords with the Natural Law, as he doesn’t recognise objective morality, only what he personally wants/doesn’t want.

  • fintan michael

    gents, if you don’t mind i think that too many of you are as they say into your heads. if you want to do something about these constant attacks not just on catholicism but on christianity as a whole then you need to identify who your enemy is in the media. its no use just saying the media is our enemy. who for example owns these media houses that spout out the anti-christian hate? who are the journalists who spout out the anti-catholic nonsense. do they have anything in common i.e. are they gay, or suspected pedophiles or have they anything else in common. just look at the bbc now with the saville business. its even stretching into govt. a whole network of these people had great influence at the bbc and in govt. and we wonder why bbc spouts anti christian propaganda which in effect brainwashes people no less then the regime in north korea. who is to say that there are even more of these people running the bbc and in govt. marc dutroux said that he was just a small cog in a very big machine which indicates that those who oppose the church are very well organized. anybody with a brain in their head can also see that even in the church to have such a large number of priests involved in gay and pedo acts indicates organization not just temptation.

  • Lynda

    Both A and B are morally acceptable in principle. It depends on the all the actual relevant circumstances pertaining within a discrete jurisdiction as to whether they would be best/desirable/practicable, etc., for the individual/society, to put them into effect there – requiring prudential judgments.

    • John Dare

      Which i think boils down to ‘yes’ Lynda, and not acceptable in any western society for some years now; and I hope will never be so.

      Do you only speak for you, or is this the view of the RC church?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>