Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: John Cornwell -  "The pope will not take responsibility"

Pope Benedict infallible? So the Vatican would like us to believe
The pope will not take responsibility for the paedophile priest cover-up
– no matter how badly it harms the Catholic church
At my Catholic primary school, our RE teacher drummed into us the
meaning of papal infallibility. "It does not mean," she used to say,
"that the pope can predict the weather, tell a lie, or get his sums
wrong." She was explaining that papal infallibility is restricted to
doctrinal matters, and only in exceptional circumstances.
And yet, in the matter of the proliferating paedophile priest scandal,
the Vatican gives the impression that no scintilla of responsibility,
still less fallibility, in fact or in principle, could possibly attach
to His Holiness. It is widely assumed even by seasoned Vatican
commentators that the least discovery, or admission, of a cover-up could
lead to his resignation. Popes, according to canon law, can indeed
resign with a stroke of the papal pen, but it has only happened once, in
1296. But no foreseeable, proven accusation is likely to prompt
Benedict's abdication.
The complex paper trails are measured now in many tens of thousands of
cases spread over half a century and across five continents. It would be
astonishing if there were not at least a handful of documents leading
back to the powerful orthodoxy watchdog, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as
Benedict once was. From 1982 until 2005 he was responsible in large
measure for the disciplining of the clergy. His failure to answer two
letters in the late 1990s from Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee
relating to an abusive priest 20 years after his crimes appears
substantive enough. But the Vatican has responded with impressive
casuistry as to the facts, and vehement indignation as to the
insinuations, and will continue to do so with this or any other
allegation brought against Benedict.
The Vatican and Benedict know, moreover, that there have been much worse
cases of recent papal culpability in the matter of paedophile priest
cover-ups. It is just eight years since Pope John Paul II first declined
to investigate a priest called Father Marcial Maciel. Maciel founded an
order known as the Legionaries of Christ and systematically engaged in
sexual abuse of minors for 40 years. Nine former members of his order
went public with accusations in 1997. Two investigators claim that
Cardinal Ratzinger tried to have Maciel brought to book but he was
allegedly overruled on John Paul's orders. John Paul claimed that he had
"discerned" that Maciel was innocent. To his credit, and not before
time, it was Ratzinger who in January 2005 (barely three months before
John Paul's death) had Maciel, then 84, relieved of his priesthood. But
Maciel, who died in 2008, was never referred to any country's criminal
justice system. Benedict has since formally apologised to Maciel's victims.
John Paul II, who is nevertheless being fast-tracked by Benedict for
sainthood, took an entirely mystical view of the paedophile crisis. He
called it a mysterium iniquitatis, an apocalyptic reference to the
influence of the powers of darkness. Benedict has continued in the view
that the phenomenon is a matter of sinfulness rather than criminality,
and he cites secularism and even the influence of liberals within the
church for priestly failings. Unwilling, or incapable, of seeing his or
the Vatican's share in responsibility for the cover-ups, he is unlikely
to suffer a moment's personal remorse for the large numbers of Catholics
who are likely to fall away in the wake of the non-stop revelations.
Twenty years ago Benedict predicted that the Catholic church would be
better off as a smaller, totally loyal, orthodox and ascetical
"remnant". The crisis will not alone consist in mass defections but the
church's possible fragmentation. The Catholic church might well be
facing its biggest crisis since the Reformation.


John Cornwell ( 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com/2009/09/its-happening-in-london-rabbinical.html
 
) - l'accuratezza e la correttezza per antonomasia. Già l'incipit col 
riferimento all'infallibilità papale... anche JC non può non averlo 
scritto non sapendo di mentire.

 ) - l'accuratezza e la correttezza per antonomasia.
per i pirla come Nahum, di sicuro.
PS: quando ho letto il titolo del tuo ultimo post sul tuo seguitissimo
blog ho avuto paura che volessi difendere le politiche ambientali
naziste...:

 naziste...:
E' un fatto che ad esempio le attuali leggi tedesche sulla caccia sono 
con poche modifiche quelle promulgate da Goering nel 1934. Dubito che 
gli attuali (e prossimi futuri, a leggere l'ultima bozza relativa alla 
2008/98/CE)  exploit della Prestigiacomo abbiano altrettanta longevità...