cover up..... not

georgieporgy

One wouldn't know from reading the secular press that Pope Benedict has been busy dumping negligent bishops at a high rate of 2 or 3 per month since the responsibility of the papacy fell on his shoulders;

Throughout his eight-year papacy, Pope Benedict XVI has “carried out a cleansing of the episcopate,” said the apostolic nuncio to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan.
“This Pope has removed two or three bishops per month throughout the world because either the accounts in their dioceses were a mess or their discipline was a disaster,” said Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia during a Feb. 20 address at the University of San Pablo in Madrid.

Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=7089#ixzz2M2uOzWXt

That's about 250 bishops "retired" over 8 years. Plus a lot of laicised perverts. We should give credit where credit is due.

Prodigious

Despite the fact that there are allegations that the pope himself was involved in covering up child abuse?

Peregrinus

georgieporgy wrote: »

One wouldn't know from reading the secular press that Pope Benedict has been busy dumping negligent bishops at a high rate of 2 or 3 per month since the responsibility of the papacy fell on his shoulders . . . That's about 250 bishops "retired" over 8 years. Plus a lot of laicised perverts. We should give credit where credit is due.

I’d like to see more detail on this; I admit I’m slightly sceptical of the claim.

But, assuming it’s true, I don’t see that it’s a defence of the pope’s record. If the pope is willing to remove bishops because they don’t keep their account books in order, but mostly not willing to remove bishops who are negligent or worse when it comes to protecting people from paedophile priests, what does that say about the pope’s priorities?

martinedwards

you aren't implying that the Vatican is more interested in money than the well being of children?

surely that all was all dealt with decades ago.

no?

El_Duderino 09

georgieporgy wrote: »

One wouldn't know from reading the secular press that Pope Benedict has been busy dumping negligent bishops at a high rate of 2 or 3 per month since the responsibility of the papacy fell on his shoulders;

Throughout his eight-year papacy, Pope Benedict XVI has “carried out a cleansing of the episcopate,” said the apostolic nuncio to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan.
“This Pope has removed two or three bishops per month throughout the world because either the accounts in their dioceses were a mess or their discipline was a disaster,” said Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia during a Feb. 20 address at the University of San Pablo in Madrid.

Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=7089#ixzz2M2uOzWXt

That's about 250 bishops "retired" over 8 years. Plus a lot of laicised perverts. We should give credit where credit is due.

And he gave the relevant information to the police so they could deal with them in accordance with local law in the case of paedophiles?

I genuinely would think well of him it that's what he's done.

Reading the article it seems he simply asked them to resign or fired them. That doesn't say that he said anything to authorities to help them protect children in the future.

Why set the bar so low for someone in such high office?

Brian Shanahan

Methememb wrote: »

Despite the fact that there are allegations that the pope himself was involved in covering up child abuse?

These are not allegations. As head of the Inquisition Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to bishops in areas where there were allegations of abuse, instructing the religious authorities not to work with secular authorities, and that any abusers would be dealt with privately by the church.

georgieporgy

Is this morphing into yet another sex scandal thread?

Read the OP carefully. It's about good news hard to come by in the secular press.

Peregrinus

The thing is, georgieporgy, I'm not sure this is a good news story.

It's not that the secular press are overlooking or suppressing stories of the pope removing bishops. When the pope removes a bishop, that story gets covered. Bill Morris. Jean-Claude Loembe. Francesco Micciche. Robert Bezak. Google them all, and you'll find secular news reports of their removals.

The thing is, you won't find news reports of 246 other similar removals. And that's not because the media sat on the story; why would they? It’s because the Vatican hasn’t announced 246 other retirements as “removals”.

What Archbishop Buendia is saying is that nearly 250 episcopal retirements, which were presented at the time by the Vatican as being retirements on the grounds of health, etc, were in fact retirements forced on the bishops concerned by the Vatican for reasons of financial mismanagement and/or disciplinary problems, but the Vatican suppressed these facts at the time and so managed to keep the stories (mostly) out of the media.

How is this a good news story? Covert exercise of power; the faithful being misled about the state of affairs in their own churches; bishops being pressurised to resign over allegations that they have no opportunity to publicly refute (or, for that matter, to publicly acknowledge and repent of); lack of due process.

And in any event, I still question the claim. As matters stand, we can't even know if this happened as Buendia says it does, because the whole thing is so covert.

In essence, he is saying that throughout his pontificate Benedict has been forcing early retirement on two or three bishops a month for financial or disciplinary failings. But all appointments and retirements of Catholic bishops are notified on the catholic-hierarchy.org website, so we can test his claim against the data there. If we discount bishops who retire at or over the usual retirement age (75), and bishops who retire in order to take up another diocese or a curial appointment, a quick-and-dirty analysis we’re left with an average of about three retirements a month. So what Buendia is claiming is that nearly all bishops who retire below age 75 do so because of financial or disciplinary indiscretions and not because, e.g. they have health problems, or they are underperforming in the job. I’d find that surprising if it were true. And if it is true, it’s certainly not a good news story.

Brian Shanahan

georgieporgy wrote: »

Is this morphing into yet another sex scandal thread?

Read the OP carefully. It's about good news hard to come by in the secular press.

A belated slap on the wrist for heinous crimes covered up by Cardinal Ratzinger and the rest of the catholic church should not be viewed as a good news story, but as a shameful indictment of the evil inaction at the heart of the corridors of power within the Vatican.

Oh and the "news source"? A propoganda rag operated by the same network of power, talking to one of the embedded operatives of that network of power. I'd take this "reoprt" with the same grain of salt as the BBC in-house magazine trying to excuse BBC executives over their role in the Jimmy Savile scandal. Incidentally, if you look at the level of vitriol and abuse thrown at the BBC by Murdoch, Dacre ("Hooray for Blackshirts!") and their ilk, you'd know that the catholic church is getting off extremely lightly.

El_Duderino 09

georgieporgy wrote: »

Is this morphing into yet another sex scandal thread?

Read the OP carefully. It's about good news hard to come by in the secular press.

I think the context in which sex abuse is brought up is to contextualise this ‘good news’
The story shows the Vatican can carry out investigations and dismiss people when they are motivated to. In this case it seems that motivation came from bishops having messy accounts where the vatican can reasonably suspect they are not getting their dues in full. Bishops not toeing the party line also serves as motivation to investigate and act.

What this boils down to is showing that the vatican is capable and prepared to act when bishops motivate them to by not paying their dues. It’s basically just protecting their own financial interest rather than doing any great societal good. It contrasts greatly with the sex abuse scandal where they didn’t act unless they really had to.

This might be a good news story where the vatican acts to help rid the world of corruption and sin (it just happens to also be in its own financial interest). The article doesn’t mention abuse cover ups, but if anywere dismissed for that, it would be consistent with the other dismissals where they could wind up costing the vatican money in compensation. If they informed the police of the crimes committed, then it might be a good news story.
It happens to contrast with an objectively good news story which you won’t find even on EWTN which reads like this

The pope dismisses bishops who were found to have been in involved in covering up sex abuse and sends all the information gathered in the investigation to the police.

Daveaherne

Once I saw the words secular press this made you're point invalid