The Blog from the Core - Thursday, December 12, 2002

In Light of the Law

And more on Cardinal Ratzinger.

From a notice at Bettnet.com, I see that Edward Peters has some very fine stuff up at his weblog.

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way to link directly to current items. Dom references "The Manchester Agreement", Dec. 11, an excellent, hard-hitting piece. (What does M.O.S. stand for?)

Allow me to refer you to "Anti-Catholic U.S. Media", Dec. 4:

.... I agree with the Cardinal. I would simply add, though, as one who has watched, and tried to fight, anti-Catholicism in the US media throughout my adult life, that even the most outrageous accusations of the infamous Maria Monk canard pale against the real life deeds of scores, if not hundreds, of our priests, frequently with the knowledge of, or at least the culpably negligent ignorance by, our bishops. Anti-Catholics in the US media have no need for lies when the truth condemns. Yes, our enemies rejoice over us. But it is we who have betrayed the City into their hands. God surely sees the hearts of those who hate the Church and delight in its suffering. But, in the meantime, each of us has contributed to this debacle by our own sins, and, just as surely, we must each contribute to the Church’s recovery by our own acts of personal repentance.

See Where is Mainstream Media When It Comes to Investigating Child Sexual Abuse?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 12/12/02 09:17:38 PM
Categorized as Religious.

New York Post Defames Pope John Paul II

Somebody ought to get fired for having done this.

I won't go into very much detail, because St. Blog's (or, Mark Shea's place, at the least) has been alive today with the news that Kate Sheehy (the writer), some unknown editor(s), and the New York Post have libelled Pope John Paul II:

Boston's Bernard Cardinal Law was just following orders from his boss - Pope John Paul II - when he sent suspected pedophile priests back to work in parishes with kids, a damning church document reveals.

The pope, in a 1999 order defrocking a Boston priest with a history of molesting boys, acknowledged that the man "ought to live away from the place where his previous condition is known." ....

They have defamed a great and good man, and they have done so with incredible and demonstrable stupidity.

The pope was doing what everybody says ought to be done: defrocking a priest who has sexually abused children. How on earth this can be reconciled with the claim that Law "was just following orders" from the pope to reassign pedophile priests is beyond reason or imagination.

Moreover, the "previous condition" referred to here is, I surmise, his having been a priest in active ministry not a pedophile. (I'm willing to accept correction on that last point, though. After all, we have little context to work with, and I assume we are also working with a translation from Latin.)

Do you see what happened? The pope agreed to defrock a child molester. He then suggested that the man live away from places where he is known to have been a priest in active ministry; but, he allowed that the man might stay where he is known if it does not trouble people's consciences. That's it. That's all. The New York Post transmogrified this into the pope having told the cardinal to reassign the priest without telling anybody about his pedophilia.

Why do I say this libel is demonstrably stupid? Because the fact that it is a libel can be deduced from the very article itself. And without too much thought, either.

I know... I know... excuses abound. They were desperate for a scoop... it was 2.5 seconds before deadline... whatever. Fine.

But excuses are only that: excuses. I doubt very much that this kind of crap would be shovelled out by a big-name newspaper if it were, say, Bill Clinton or George Bush who was being libelled. They'd check and double check and redouble check. And probably run it past the lawyers, too.

It's too bad the pope probably isn't inclined to suing anybody: he could make a killing, I think.

P.S. Important note for reporters: it is not a scoop if it is not true. Didn't they cover that in J school?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 12/12/02 04:19:34 PM
Categorized as Pope John Paul the Great & Religious.

"Islam and the Church"

"Fourteen Centuries of Jihad"

Islam-Jihad at the website of Epiphany of Our Lord Byzantine Catholic Church, Roswell, Georgia, USA:

On September 11, 2001, a day that shall live in infamy, radical Muslims (1) seized four airplanes and smashed three of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in northern Virginia; the fourth crashed in southern Pennsylvania. To date more than 3000 dead are estimated. Immediately the inquiry began into the motives and means of attack. For the first time in their history the United States find themselves in a religious war, one not of their own making, but one unleashed against them by radical Muslims whose declared mission is the destruction of Christians and Jews and the United States which shelter them. Liberals, secular humanists and Islamophiles may cringe at this, but the declared purpose of Osama bin Laden and of Muslims of like mind leaves no room for any other conclusion. This page shall not inquire in any depth into the religion of Islam (2) and its founder, Muhammad, but rather into the origins of the holy war (jihad) (3) waged for fourteen centuries against Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims....

(Referenced in the Dec. 2002 issue of This Rock.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 12/12/02 11:49:29 AM
Categorized as Religious.

J. C. Watts Agrees With Me, Too

Plus, a thought on ~~The Snake in the Grass~~ Sen. Tom Daschle.

Re: Trent Lott is a Twit: But, what's all this fuss?

Here is J. C. Watt's statement on Trent Lott's remarks:

As the incoming majority leader already said about himself, Senator Lott went too far. He told me he would like to have his words back, but I took his comments as complimentary humor that often accompanies personal tributes.

His comments were as serious as the venue at which they were delivered - a birthday party.

We should accept his apology, get out of our offices and do some holiday shopping.

Watts is chairman of the House Republican Conference. I would also say he is black, but as we all know it is not possible for a Republican politician to be black.

Also, some have been wondering why on earth Tom Daschle gave Trent Lott a pass on his remarks since so many other Democrats are breathing fire. Well, as far as I can tell, Daschle has found Lott to be a pushover. Daschle probably does not want somebody with gonads as the Senate's Majority Leader in the next Congress. Thus, he wanted to defuse the situation before Lott got blown out of the water, and out of the Senate leadership.

(Thanks Kathryn.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 12/12/02 10:39:52 AM
Categorized as Political.