“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18,19)

Christian values (indeed religious values in general) are truly inconvenient to a great many aspirations. Among them: greed, cruelty, hedonism, sodomism, materialism, consumerism and a number of other "isms" that make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful. I don't blame them for trying to do without Faith.

Knitting the Fabric of Christianity

Spoken yesterday by the Holy Father, these are the words professed by a man who wants to knit the fabric of Mankind:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As you know, I have just returned from my first Apostolic Journey to the United Kingdom, and I wish to send my affectionate greetings to all those I met and those who contributed to the visit through the media during four days, which have begun a new and important phase in the long-standing relations between the Holy See and Great Britain.

Last Thursday, I was honoured by the warm welcome of Her Majesty The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in Scotland’s historic capital Edinburgh. Later that day, I celebrated Mass in Glasgow in the presence of many bishops, priests, religious and a great concourse of the faithful against the backdrop of a beautiful sunset at Bellahouston Park, within sight of the place where my beloved predecessor celebrated Mass with the Scots twenty-eight years ago.

Upon arriving in London, I met thousands of Catholic students and schoolchildren at a very joyful celebration, reminding all of us of the excellent and essential work being done by Catholic schools and teachers throughout the land. I then had the pleasure of meeting the clerical and lay representatives of different religions and of discussing the search for the sacred common to all men.

Later, I had the honour of calling upon His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury who has come on several occasions to meet me in Rome. Our meeting at Lambeth Palace, in the presence of the Bishops of the Church of England, was very cordial and fraternal. I then crossed the river to Westminster where I was given the unprecedented opportunity to address both Houses of Parliament gathered in Westminster Hall on the importance of a fruitful dialogue between religion and reason, a theme as relevant in the time of Saint Thomas More as it is in our own day. Finally that day, I had the privilege of kneeling in prayer with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Tomb of Saint Edward in Westminster Abbey, and of giving thanks to God with the Archbishop, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and other British Christian leaders, for the many blessings God has bestowed upon our efforts to re-knit the fabric of our Christian fellowship.

The next morning, I had the pleasure of greeting Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Ms Harriet Harman, leader of the Opposition, before celebrating Mass in Westminster Cathedral, with a liturgy evocative of the best of the English musical tradition in the celebration of the Roman rite. That afternoon, I was welcomed very cordially by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the elderly people they look after. There I also had the chance to thank and encourage those charged with the safeguarding of children in Britain. That evening I participated at a beautiful vigil of deep prayerfulness and stillness at Hyde Park with tens of thousands of the faithful.

On Sunday morning, I travelled to Birmingham where I had the joy of celebrating the Beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Later that day, after a warm and fraternal meeting with all the Bishops of Britain, I was bidden farewell by Prime Minister Cameron during a very cordial speech at Birmingham International Airport on the Government’s wish to build a partnership for development with the Catholic Church and others.

Sunday, then, was a moment of deep personal satisfaction, as the Church celebrated the blessedness of a great Englishman, whose life and writings I have admired for many years and who has come to be appreciated by countless people far beyond the shores of his native land. Blessed John Henry Newman’s clear-minded search to know and express the truth in charity, at whatever cost to his own personal comfort, status and even friendships, is a wonderful testimony of a pure desire to know and love God in the communion of the Church. His is surely an example that can inspire us all.

© Copyright 2010 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Lula's Legacy

The Brazilian media is gagged, seduced and/or bullied into submission by parties in the government. That is the ONLY explanation why they are not yelling into the four winds against the perspective of perpetuating a regime that has thrown ethics out the window along the last eight years.

Presidential elections are up next month in Brazil. Lula has become Brazil's international poster boy for progress and social equity. The forerunner is Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva's successor. Yet, the Internet and the printed press is booming with corruption scandals and a shady past that almost never makes it into the televised media. Why is that?

Scandal after scandal, the present government has managed to stay in power despite a flood of corruption and impunity that reaches down from the presidential palace, through the senate and into the lowest echelons of society. The damage done by leaving unpunished those that were amply proven guilty is permeating every level of our Society and is being perpetuated in our contemporary culture. From shoplifting to abuse of power to fraud, Brazilian Society has learned the lessons taught by the presidential palace in Brasilia.

Yet, the charismatic figure of Luis Inacio – the captivating ignorant immigrant worker that made president – has managed to divorce itself from each and every scandal simply by denying that he had any knowledge of them or even that they happened. On the streets, people are doing the same when they crash their cars or are caught stealing.

Here’s an admirable man, one that was given a great opportunity: the chance to really make a difference and change Brazil for the better. He had everything going for him. He had the presidency, the majority in the senate, the ample support of the people, an economy fixed by the previous administration and ready to boom and everything else a man could ask for in order to become a statesman. He could have changed this country beyond imagination by promoting good education and genuine opportunity by generating infrastructure for further growth.
Instead, Luis wasted it all and gave in to corruption to remain a dirty politician supporting his friends and family within the government. Why? Was it just greed? Was it incompetence? No. He is not the “ignorant immigrant” he wants us to believe. Here’s a fox masquerading as lamb.

His policy? The oldest possible: Bread and Circus. Circus is the cascade of scandals playing out on the tele every night, with NOT A SINGLE guilty party being prosecuted or arrested. They are sacked alright, but nothing is confiscated nor is anyone made to pay for their treachery. Bread is the change money he gives away as alms to the poor in the Northeast of the country. Notice that he didn’t solve the problems with the health infrastructure, nor did he build a future for these people by improving education and businesses. He but gave them a little money each month under the premise that they needed it to get out of misery. He didn’t give them jobs, he didn’t give them lessons, he gave them alms. His criterion for the value he gave them? The number of children in the family. You don’t have to be a genius to see where this will lead, do you?

Now Luis’ successor is nothing without his figure. She is not charismatic, nor can she claim to have been poor or ignorant at any point in her life. She is not a feminist, she is not an exemplary mother, she is not even one of the people. She was just a rebel who resorted to crime to keep her failed rebellion going. What is she today? Just another corrupt politician claiming to have brought Brazil out of poverty; claiming to have solved issues that had been already solved for her.

Just the other day her right hand and successor as the Cabinet Minister was implicated in a corruption scandal and sacked. She was the fourth Cabinet Minister that was sacked on corruption scandals. She is still free and Luis claims ignorance yet again. Just the other day a citizen who protested against the first Cabinet Minister (Luis' personal friend) was arrested upon returning to Brazil. No charges were made. He died in prision of a "virulent illness" forty-eight hours latter.

As for Luis’ legacy, that will certainly be the destruction of even the most basic moral values and the corruption of an entire society. Never a statesman, always just another dirty politician.

There should be no separation between what we believe and how we live. When a man forgoes his concience to "belong" in the crowd, he brings dismay to himself and to those he loves. When a leader forgoes his conscience to gain popularity, he leads a whole nation through a short path into chaos and oblivion.

Benedict XVI: Beware of Marginalizing Religion

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15: 18,19)

Those of you who have been following this blog know very well that I constantly express concern over the breaking of moral values in our present global society. More than a few times have I raised red flags over the fact that religious people are marginalized and sometimes even persecuted because their moral values are inconvenient in a materialistic society bent on consumerism.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, during his recent ground-breaking visit to London, expressed similar concerns. He urged civil leaders to consider religion a "vital contributor" to nations. He further said to diplomats, academics, entrepeneurs and religious leaders that religion "is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation."

"In this light," he further said, "I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere," affirmed the Holy Father at Westminster Hall.

"There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue - paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination - that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience." He added with concern.

"These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life. Your readiness to do so is already implied in the unprecedented invitation extended to me today," the Pope observed. "And it finds expression in the fields of concern in which your government has been engaged with the Holy See."

The Holy Father further described the role of religion in political debate as "to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This 'corrective' role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed," the Pontiff acknowledged, "though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves."

"And in their turn" he added, "these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century."

"This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith - the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief - need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization," he included.

In enphasizing the ongoing cooperation between the UK government and the Holy See in several fields as an example of the aforementioned cooperative effort between religion and government, Benedict XVI stated, "I hope and pray that this relationship will continue to bear fruit, and that it will be mirrored in a growing acceptance of the need for dialogue and respect at every level of society between the world of reason and the world of faith. For such cooperation to be possible, religious bodies -- including institutions linked to the Catholic Church -- need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles and specific convictions based upon the faith and the official teaching of the Church."

"In this way," he asserted, "such basic rights as religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association are guaranteed."

The Holy Father couldn't be more correct. I think we took millenia to develop moral codes and ethics that enable human society and make it viable for us to live alongside one another in some measure of civility and harmony, and now that is placed in geopardy by the "priests of consumerism"; the radical secularists.

Say what you will, but the moral values proposed by religion have been paramount in this process of creating a viable society. The so-called "liberties" that people take as a novelty today are nothing more than a return to the chaotic demi-societies of the ancient world, when people valued power and worshiped riches and sought only the excuse to pursue their own convenience by force of arms. We evolved from that into something better and now some want to throw it away.

If we want a global society to work: Keep religion. Keep the Faith.

On Cardinal Walter Kasper’s Comment:

The English media has very vehemently capitalised on Cardinal Kasper’s slip of the tongue, but an objective look at the remark could actually be construed very positively.

Just before the historic Papal visit to the UK this past week, Cardinal Kasper commented to a German magazine something to the effect that “arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a Third World country.”

The comment obviously referred to the disarray of incoming passengers arriving into Heathrow and the great volume of them that are made to line up in huge queues according to national origin.

This is a caustic – though otherwise innocent – remark pointing to the fact that the sheer volume of foreign visitors passing through the English airport awards it an untidy feeling not at all unlike the street markets of "Third World" countries.

Nevertheless, parties in the UK media greatly exaggerated the remark and attempted to link it to the Pope’s declaration on how extremisms in secular and atheist movements can be harmful to society in general. Ros Atkins, the host of BBC’s World Have Your Say programme, asked me during his interview on this Friday the 17th weather I thought that the Cardinal thought the UK similar to a Third World Country on account of the secularist tendencies of UK society.

At the time, my wits were insufficient to come up with a particularly good answer in the allotted time, but here’s what I wanted to say then:

First and foremost, the very term “Third World country” is imprecise and completely prejudiced. It was coined to refer to economically underdeveloped societies and latter associated with corruption and social decay. However, there are so-called “Third World” countries like South Africa and Brazil that generate technology ahead of the “First World” in several fields and are amongst the leading world economies (Brazil is the 9th and is economically ahead of many European nations). Hence, it would be incoherent to assume that a “Third World” country is underdeveloped in any particular secularist point of view.

Secondly, nowadays the “Third World” tends to be more spiritually inclined than the “First World”. This is not to say there is no secularism in “Third World” nations or no religion in the "First World", but the truth is there are more religious people in these nations.

It could be argued that spiritualism is more present there because there is greater need, in which case the Vatican would be well aware of it because the Catholic Church is the single largest Humanitarian and Charitable organisation in the globe.

Equally, it could be argued that there is greater religiosity in the “Third World” because there are less materialistic distractions to deviate people from what’s truly important, in which case calling the UK a “Third World” nation would actually be a compliment.

Be that as it may, the largest concentration of Roman Catholics is in Latin America, which itself is composed solely of “Third World” countries. A cardinal of the Vatican would certainly know such facts and would not hint at any link between secularism, social underdevelopment and “Third World” nations.

Finally, secularist nations tend to be more materialistic and very economically developed, which is not to say that all predominantly secularist societies are particularly developed. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the globe as a developed nation, a “First World” country. It is also recognised as a great nation for all of what its people have achieved over the centuries. A German-born person of Cardinal Kasper’s age, who has grown old in the aftermath of World War II, would know very well the UK’s worth as an economy and as a military power, and would not think it a "Third World" nation. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI has, throughout his discourse whilst in the UK, continually reaffirmed his admiration for the people of the United Kingdom and his respect for the social development of the nation.

Taken together, the three arguments above point to the fact that:

A. The Vatican respects the people of the UK and holds the nation in high regard
B. The Vatican values the peoples of “Third World” countries and hold them in high regard
C. The UK media distorted the cardinal’s comment to generate controversy where there was none. The comment was taken out of context and associated to the Pope’s own lucid message under a different light than that which had been originally meant.

So, if one has even half the wit necessary to understand an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric, it should be plain enough that the entire episode had very little to do with Cardinal Kasper’s slip of the tongue, and very much to do with prompting public opinion against the Catholic Church to further a very persecutory agenda; even as the Pontiff was attempting to improve relations with the people of the UK.

To me the Papal visit happening under such adverse scenario means that some are trying more than others to reach out and establish some common ground; amongst them The Queen and The PM of England and The Pope, all of whom agreed that the visit was necessary; thus making it into a State visit.

Conversely, the blind hatred displayed by certain groups among the English people goes to show how important it was for the Pope to have visited at this particular moment.

The unfortunate fact on all this was that this frivolous inflammatory effort by parties in the UK media found fertile ground in the already disproportioned animosity against the Catholic Faith that has been build into the people of the United Kingdom.

Personally, I feel pity for the share of intolerance and short-sightedness that can sometimes surface in an otherwise great nation, such as the United Kingdom, and I pray that understaing and respect come once more to dominate the hearts and minds of the people of the UK so that they may be called "British" and not "Brutish".

BBC Says Pope is a "Plaintiff"

The following text was extracted from the BBC UK web site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11333448

"The plaintiff also said that a 'dictatorship of relativism' threatened 'to obscure the unchanging truth about man's nature, his destiny and his ultimate good.'"

Notice the word "plaintiff" in place of "pontiff". Does this show what the BBC really thinks of our good Pope Benedict XVI? One can hope not, but in my opinion, it does.

Yesterday I was contacted by the BBC World Service with a new invitation to partake in today’s programme World Have Your Say, which clearly intends to focus on recent controversies preceding the pontiff’s visit to the UK and on the Pope's remark on radical secularism. Can we hope for an objective view, or is it liklier that we'll witness the discontextualisation of quotes again?

In speaking to Ben, one of the producers of the show, one finds a level-headed man who admits having no personal experience of the Catholic Church (or religion) and a man who admits the Church is under attack.But why do people fear the Church in progressive countries?

The answer is simple: Because they have little contact with it, they are easily convinced of the demonization of priests and Popes. They do not see the good that the Church quietly pursues in promoting education, health institutions, charity and spiritual solace around the globe. In speaking to Pearce, a jolly techie visiting the studio from Britain, I found that this is a little our own fault for not making a fuss of what we do, but then again, by doctrine, we're not supposed to.

Here comes the key question: Why? Why is the Catholic Church specifically (and religion in general) under attack? Could it be that Catholics stand against socio-economic tendencies that seek to generate and concentrate wealth in detriment of human dignity and world ecology? Could it be that Christian values and morals are contrary to rampant consumerism and offer a perennial form of fulfilment that far outdoes the ephemeral pleasures of an hedonistic society?

If you can honestly answer this question, then you will be well into understanding why religion is under attack in Western Society. You will then understand the motive behind the banner.

Though yesterday's quick discussion over the phone took us through subjects such as why western laws once attempted to ensure freedom of religion and at the same time governments pressure the Church into giving up some of its values. We analysed ever so briefly why there is animosity against Christian thought and its relation to consumerism and materialism among other power driven agendas. Today's show never even touched the subject, which was a little disappointing. Even when I brought it up to Ros Atkins, the host, he just steered away from it.

The truth of the matter is: We're in all of this together. That's the message Pope Benedict is trying to convey. "Respect" and "tolerance" are key concepts if we are ever to build a world-wide community.

Did the show focus on this? Yeah a little, so there's a pat on the back for the BBC. As for the "Third World" slip of the tong by the Pope's Cardinal, well, after the "plaintiff for pontiff" slip of the keyboard at the very BBC, I think it could have been left out.

At least I'm glad the BBC corrected their "typo".

To those hardcore atheists who claim religion "is a prison" my question is: What are radical secularism, fanatic liberalism and rampant materialism if not prisons of a different kind? "Tolerance" and "respect" are key words if we are to build a global society.

Deep Thinker on the BBC

Well, I've been invited by BBC producers to partake on the BBC's World Have Your Say TV programme again today. Again the programme pertained to the Catholic Church, this time on the matter of the Pope's historic visit to the UK.

The host, Ros Atkins, focused on the the Pope's remarks on Radical Secularism and on Cardinal Kasper's criticism of Heathrow airport. Here's a link if you want to watch me make a fool of myself yet again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9nAB9QOlw&feature=player_embedded - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5sw-9taUas&feature=player_embedded - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4x8m1EcaFU&feature=player_embedded - Part 3

The WHYS website link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2010/09/whys_on_tv_the_pope_in_britain.html#255126#more

Benedict XVI Besieged

Interview With Author of "Attack on Ratzinger"
By Antonio Gaspari

ROME, SEPT. 14, 2010 (Zenit.org) - From Regensburg to the sexual abuse crisis, the international press has hammered away at Benedict XVI since the beginning of his pontificate.

That is the topic of "Attacco a Ratzinger: accuse scandali, profezie e complotti contro Benedetto XVI" (Attack on Ratzinger: scandalous accusations, prophecies and plots against Benedict XVI), written by noted Vatican watchers Paolo Rodari and Andrea Tornielli (published in Italian by Piemme).

Rodari writes for the Italian newspaper Il Foglio, and Tornielli writes for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

Tornielli sat down with ZENIT to discusse how the book reconstructs in great detail and with original and unpublished research the accusations leveled at the Pontiff, and the motivations that led to them.

Tornielli has published numerous successful books, among which the most recent are: "Pio XII: Un uomo sul trono di Pietro" ("Pius XII: A man on the throne of Peter") (Mondatori, 2007) and "Paolo VI: L'audacia di un Papa" ("Paul VI: A Pope's audacity") (Mondatori, 2009).

ZENIT: Who is interested in criticizing the Pope?

Tornielli: I believe that, although an organized plot does not exist nor a single direction, there are groups, lobbies, political and/or economic powers that have an interest in weakening the power of the Church's voice, reducing its international authority and hold on populations for the most disparate ends.

ZENIT: Why do they attack him? Why did they stop him from speaking at La Sapienza University of Rome? What is it that secular power fears from the pontificate of Benedict XVI?

Tornielli: Certain media campaigns are determined by a negative view, by a consolidated prejudice that does not at all correspond to reality, which previously portrayed Cardinal Ratzinger and then Benedict XVI as a retrograde, illiberal and anti-democratic conservative.

The Sapienza case is exemplary because not only did some small groups of ideologue students "judge" Ratzinger on the basis of a mistaken citation taken from Wikipedia, but so did researchers and professors (which should also tell us something about the state of our universities).

Secularized power fears the proclamation of an irreducible truth. There are lobbies and groups with power who are irritated by Christian morality and the Church's ethical teaching, but also her positions on war, globalization, and the protection of creation. In certain situations the Church's voice remains the sole bulwark against an anesthetized conscience.

ZENIT: During his flight to Portugal on May 11, Benedict XVI said: "Today we see in a terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church comes from the inside, from the sins that are within the Church herself, and not from external enemies." What are the sins that the Pope is referring to, and who are the groups and the persons who oppose him in the Church?

Tornielli: The question was formulated with an explicit reference to the pedophile scandal that involves some of the clergy. The Pope's answer was dramatic. Benedict XVI explained that the strongest attack comes from within; it is sin in the Church. At bottom, history has taught us that the Church has always emerged strengthened from external attacks, perhaps after long periods of difficulty, if not persecution. It is the attack from within that destroys.

Now, there are not only the major, "terrifying" episodes of the abominable crime of pedophilia. There is also the advance of non-Catholic thought within the Catholic Church: a reality that was denounced with extreme lucidity already by the great Pope Paul VI, and which unfortunately persists today. I was struck, for example, by certain strong reactions against Benedict XVI's decision to liberalize the traditional Mass. There were public reactions, even by bishops. But there would be many examples.

ZENIT: The Pontiff, in the homily of the Mass that concluded the Year for Priests on June 11, spoke very explicitly of heresies and of the necessity of using the rod ("bastone") against the wolves who want to destroy the flock. To whom was he referring? Who are the wolves who want to destroy the flock? What are the modern heresies at work in the Church?

Tornielli: In our book we analyze the crises of the first five years of the pontificate of Benedict XVI; we do not make a list of heresies. I would like, however, to recall that unfortunately ideas and interpretations are spreading, in a more or less subterranean way, that end up threatening the faith of the average Catholic, and more generally the Catholic faith, not in regard to some consequence -- where perhaps a debate and the coexistence of different interpretations would be understandable -- but precisely in regard to the essentials of the faith.

In this sense, as the then Cardinal Ratzinger explained at the beginning of his service as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the magisterium has the task of protecting the faith of the average Catholic, of those who do not write for the newspapers and go on TV. In this sense the magisterium has a "democratic" task, he said. I believe that one radical change that the Pope asks of everyone is that of being aware that the Church is not "made" by us, it cannot be thought of like we think of a company, everything cannot be reduced to claims about functions and ministries; the Church's life cannot be planned only by pastoral strategies. If we were to learn from this constant appeal of the Pope, then maybe many of the open and secret members of the opposition would understand that the Pope is not an absolute monarch, but that he too obeys Jesus Christ in transmitting the "depositum fidei."

ZENIT: According to the Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of Trieste, there exists a parallel magisterium among ecclesiastics, professors of theology in the seminaries, priests and laypeople who "muffle Benedict XVI's teachings, do not read the documents of his magisterium, write and speak arguing exactly the opposite of what he says, launch pastoral and cultural initiatives, on the terrain of bioethics or in ecumenical dialogue, for example, in open divergence with what he teaches." Is this true or is Archbishop Crepaldi mistaken?

Tornielli: I believe that Archbishop Crepaldi is right. It is obvious -- just take a look at many parishes, participate at conferences, cultural gatherings, etc., and you will see how Benedict XVI's magisterium (but this happened before too, with other Popes) is not transmitted to the faithful, but is instead sometimes openly contradicted.

ZENIT: The book that you wrote with Paolo Rodari, "Attack on Ratzinger," claims that through journalistic polemics there is an attempt to confuse the faithful, hiding the true meaning of the words and actions of Benedict XVI, presenting the Pontiff as an elderly conservative, traditionalist, anti-modern, out of touch with history. And yet this Pontiff is accomplishing wonders, such as, for example, the recovery of faith by secularized people, the good relations with the other Christian confessions, above all with the Anglicans and Russian Orthodox, the renewal in the obedience and fidelity of the clergy, the practice of the new evangelization. In sum, they attack him because he is revitalizing the Catholic Church for the better. Is this not what is happening?

Tornielli: This is part of what is happening, but it is not just this. They attack him because he reasserts certain teachings about bioethics, but also because he speaks about poverty and globalization. They attack him because of the deep-rooted cliché, but also because, unfortunately, sometimes the media is not prepared to present certain messages or to interpret them in the right context. They attack him because on more than one occasion -- I hate to say it but it is true, and I believe that we have documented it in the book -- even those who are nearest to Benedict XVI could help him most to avoid the springing up of unnecessary polemics or to eliminate them as soon as they arise.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis

By Elizabeth Lev:

ROME, SEPT. 9, 2010 (Zenit.org): I must have looked pretty bizarre on the beach this summer with "Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis" in hand. Indeed, through the first chapters it seemed like Hurricane Earl had come to ruin my summer, but persevering through the book, the clouds cleared and left me with a brighter outlook on this very difficult time for the Church.

Written by Gregory Erlandson and Matthew Bunson (president of Our Sunday Visitor and Catholic Almanac editor respectively), “Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis” presents a clear, objective and comprehensive view of sexual abuse among the clergy. Besides presenting the hard worldwide facts and figures of the scandal, it focuses on Benedict XVI’s actions and reactions from his time as bishop to the years heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and through his reign as Pope.

After six months of confusing news reports and general hysteria in the media and in the public square, this dispassionate and fact-laden book does much to organize one’s thoughts and present verifiable truths. While the secular media continues to raise its “clerical sex abuse” flag at every turn, especially as they attempt to frame the upcoming papal visit to Britain singularly in these terms, this book demonstrates that Pope Benedict should be hailed as a hero in this tragic chapter of the Church, not assailed for “crimes against humanity” (as radical atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have proposed).

By no means is this an easy read. Opening with a report of vandalism at Pope Benedict’s childhood home, the authors invite the reader to delve into the hostility and divisiveness of the issue. As the authors trace the life of Joseph Ratzinger from that home through the turbulent waters of the 20th century, it becomes clear that our Pope is no stranger to hard issues. But he could not have expected the tidal wave of sex abuse reports that would flow into his office as head of the CDF in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s 2001 apostolic letter, “The Safeguarding of the Sacraments.” This document required bishops to report sexual violations “committed by a cleric with a minor below the age of 18 years.” Cardinal Ratzinger knew at once he would have a battle on two fronts: (1) the problem of sex abuse itself and (2) the ensuing scandal and its effects on the Church.

The authors quote a 2005 New York Times article to illustrate how seriously Cardinal Ratzinger took this task. Reviewing the reports every Friday, the Times reported, Ratzinger “found the cases so disturbing he called the work his Friday penance.”

The length and breadth of sexual abuse data is daunting. Erlandson and Bunson take the reader through the many reforms the Church has made over the centuries to combat ever-present sexual sin, illustrating that the problem is not endemic to the Church but rather, in a post-Fall world, a human failing that requires constant vigilance and renewal within the Church. From the dawn of the second millennium, the Church has written, legislated and preached to protect its flock especially in this area.

Interestingly, the issue of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality was far more overtly examined in the 11th century than in the 21st, despite the fact that in the 3,000 cases reported to the CDF, 60% percent involved homosexual activity.

The most difficult part of the book is the descent into the inferno of the modern crisis. From the breaking story in 2002 to the Murphy report in Ireland, the facts and figures of sexual abuse are devastating. It is difficult to read about the suffering of the victims, let alone imagine being the person required to clean up this sea of sin and scandal.

Erlandson and Bunson offer a few unusual pieces of information. They consulted the “Insurance Journal” of the companies that insure Protestant Churches for some comparative numbers and discovered that there were more reports of sex abuse per year than in the Catholic Church. Since very few entities besides the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have commissioned a study like the John Jay Report to comprehend the scope and nature of the problem of sex abuse, the problem has sometimes mistakenly been perceived as specific to the Catholic Church.

The tragic stories and data from Germany, Australia, Canada and other countries leave the reader asking, “Where do we go from here?” The rest of the book addresses that question. First, it underscores the decisive response of United States bishops in 2002 with the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.” These new directives as well as the expeditious system for dealing with a sex abuser, however, came from the direction of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, who identified and began addressing the issue pointedly in 2001. The British newspaper Daily Telegraph wrote in March 2010 that thanks to this Pope, "There is no safer place for a child today to be than with a Catholic priest.”

Pope Benedict’s frequent encounters with victims of sex abuse are recorded, as well as his extensive comments on the topic in interviews and homilies. By the last page, one wonders why it is that one of the most dramatic turn-around stories in history has been so ignored. Last year in the United States, there were a mere six allegations of abuse of children under age 18 out of a population of 42,000 priests and 70 million Catholics. One wonders why the Catholic Church hasn’t become the model of how to deal with this kind of crisis, instead of a synonym for sex abuse.

I personally found Erlandson and Bunson too gentle with the secular press as well as the contingency fee for lawyers who have exploited the sins of Catholics to their own greatest advantage. On the other hand, the authors’ restraint bolsters their argument, which focuses on the problem and the solutions implemented by Pope Benedict. They do, however, drop one interesting number regarding the total settlement amounts thus far (about $2 billion) and the 30% pocketed by the lawyers under the American system of lawsuits of this nature.

British papal detractors have harped on the sex abuse scandal to justify their hooligan-like attitude toward Benedict’s visit. Six months ago British columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime.” In the face of such rhetorical vitriol, the calm facts and historical data presented by Erlandson and Bunson go a long way toward soothing troubled spirits.

Elizabeth Lev teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University’s Italian campus and University of St. Thomas’ Catholic Studies program.

Ignoring endemic wrongdoing and telling yourself you did it in the name of social diversity is not tolerance, but omission. It may not be within your rights to prevent someone from pursuing an act of wrongdoing, but it is within your power to try to dissuade them.