Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher


Cardinal Schoenborn’s McChrystal moment

posted by Rod Dreher

This is a story both heartbreaking and infuriating:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican issued an unprecedented public rebuke Monday of a leading cardinal who had questioned the church’s policy of celibacy and openly criticized the retired Vatican No. 2 for his handling of clerical sex abuse cases.
In a statement, the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal, not another so-called prince of the church.
In April, Vienna’s archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, accused the former Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of blocking a probe into a sex abuse scandal that rocked Austria’s church 15 years ago.
Schoenborn also accused Sodano of causing ”massive harm” to victims when he dismissed claims of clerical abuse as ”petty gossip” on Easter Sunday.
Schoenborn has been a leading figure in the abuse crisis, forcefully denouncing abuse, presiding over service of reparations for victims and openly calling for an honest examination of issues like celibacy.

Infuriating! Cdl. Schoenborn is theologically orthodox, and has been a source of hope for many because of his truth-telling about the sex abuse scandal — including his (private) campaign to compel Pope John Paul II to deal with the fact, later acknowledged, that a retired Vienna Cardinal was a serial sex abuser. It is disappointing, to put it mildly, that Pope Benedict has chosen to humiliate a good cardinal who is naturally one of his allies, for publicly criticizing the public actions of the snakey Cardinal Sodano. Is Benedict blind? Does he really think that the position of the Church is strengthened by denouncing cardinals who dare to criticize each other? This action by the pope is not a sign of strength, but its opposite.
As a public relations matter, this is a big mistake. Yesterday, the Pope publicly sided with the Belgian church, which is in a world of trouble over having covered up child sex abuse by clerics for years. Today the Pope publicly reprimanded a cardinal for daring to criticize another cardinal (note well: the Pope didn’t pronounce on the accuracy or justice of Cdl. Schoenborn’s remarks, only that he was out of line for criticizing at all). What both actions have in common is the Pope’s belief in supporting the image of hierarchical solidarity, above all things. It’s simply bizarre that cardinals like Danneels can get away with doing crazy things that undermine the Church and its teachings, but what draws a public papal rebuke is Schoenborn’s criticism of Cdl. Sodano for allegedly blocking a sex abuse probe in Austria, and for belittling sex abuse victims.
Romanitas uber alles? Depressingly, it seems so. That’s the culture of the Curia. The tragedy here is that Pope Benedict, a man I believe to be good and holy, seems to think this kind of judgment — standing with Sodano over Schoenborn — strengthens the position of the Church. It has been said before that Benedict, as a brilliant but somewhat sheltered academic theologian, has a poor sense of how his statements and actions play out in the real world. The Schoenborn humiliation strikes me as an example of this. If Benedict felt compelled to reprimand Schoenborn, could he not have done it privately? He has likely alienated a brilliant and faithful cardinal who ought to be among his closest allies — all because that cardinal said what many Catholics believe to be a statement of fact, and not only true, but important to say.
UPDATE: If I were a cynic, I would say: what kind of secrets does Cardinal Sodano, the veteran defender of Maciel and curial antagonist to Cdl. Ratzinger during the Woytyla papacy, know to be able to get this kind of response out of the Pope?
UPDATE.2: Reader Mere Catholic notes in the comboxes that Schoenborn’s original comments about Sodano were made in the context of his defending Benedict XVI against charges that he (Benedict) had been lax in attacking the sex abuse scandal. Schoenborn told Austrian journalists that Cdl. Ratzinger had wanted to go after the molester Cdl. Groer, but that Sodano, then the No. 2 in the Vatican hierarchy, wouldn’t let him. As Mere Catholic notes correctly, “No good deed goes unpunished.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(36)
post a comment
Hunk Hondo

posted June 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm


I have so wanted to trust this man and believe in him. But for me, at least, the excuses are running out pretty fast.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted June 28, 2010 at 2:48 pm


Pope Benedict’s words of apology were a start, but I always suspected actually making the institutional reforms would be beyond his power, or beyond his will. I believe it is institutional corruption and rot that are the chief culprit behind the cover-up, and the Pope’s commitment to protecting the institution is not much different than that of the bishops who ignored abuse. A shake-up of the authoritarian structure of the church is needed, IMO. But I hold out little hope that it is going to happen.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm


In defense of Benedict, I believe the Catholic Church as an institution probably needs more years of rot and decay before real change will even be possible. I’m not speaking now of ending celibacy or of ordaining women but of ending institutional corruption and a**-covering.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:19 pm


The jig is up, these guys in their funny outfits make up nothing more than an organized crime family, a BIG one.



report abuse
 

Marquis

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm


Benedict XVI is the pope. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn is not the pope. Rod Dreher is not the pope. Be loyal or be Anglican.



report abuse
 

Susan

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm


You are right, Marquis. I was raised Lutheran, and sometimes I am attracted to converting to Roman Catholicism. But when I see stories like this, I get this “Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger” alarm going off inside me. The whole “Here I stand, I can do no other” upbringing comes rushing forth.
And so I just might join the Anglicans. They could use a few converts.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:33 pm


Marquis: “Benedict XVI is the pope. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn is not the pope. Rod Dreher is not the pope. Be loyal or be Anglican.”
Could you elaborate as to whether this was intended as sarcastic or serious? That isn’t a question that would have to be asked in a face-to-face conversation, as your vocal inflection and face would answer the question. However, we lack that here…so I ask your indulgence.



report abuse
 

Erik

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm


This turns out to be another case where one is better off reading the actual statement issued by the Vatican than the secondhand stories about the statement. The AP story reads:
“the Vatican said only the pope can make such accusations against a cardinal…”
This is just plain inaccurate. The statement says:
“It is recalled that in the Church, when accusations are made against a Cardinal, the competence rests solely with the Pope…”
It may seem like a small difference, but in fact it has to do with the difference between making an accusation and the competence of judgment regarding such accusations. This statement does not in any way say that only the pope can make accusations against cardinals.
Note that more informed Vatican watchers point out that this statement contains no suggestion of a retraction of Cardinal Schoenborn’s remarks. Note also that the statement does not express any conclusions regarding those accusations. These facts are significant, and makes the statement far less of a “rebuke” than the AP suggests.
While, again, the Vatican shows less than a competent PR sense, I don’t think this is over, and cries of doom and tragedy are perhaps overwrought and premature.



report abuse
 

Rod Dreher

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:46 pm


Benedict XVI is the pope. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn is not the pope. Rod Dreher is not the pope. Be loyal or be Anglican.
Oh, please. “Shut up and salute” is not remotely an adequate response to what’s happened. In any case, Cdl. Schoenborn did not deny or even question Church teaching. He only called out a brother cardinal for allegedly trying to block an investigation into sexual abuse committed by a third cardinal (the late Groer), and for belittling sexual abuse victims. If that’s the kind of behavior that draws a public papal rebuke, then it’s a scandal. Again, note that the pope’s slapdown of Schoenborn came because in the Vatican’s view, only the pope can criticize a cardinal, not a fellow cardinal. Granted, it wouldn’t do for cardinals to be feuding in public with each other, but the public nature of this rebuke is a humiliation to Cdl. Schoenborn, but mostly it hurts Benedict, because it shows his skewed priorities (e.g., a public rebuke to a faithful cardinal for daring to criticize another cardinal in public, versus silence in the face of pretty outrageous acts of substance done by other cardinals).
I’m not saying the Pope should make it his business to publicly call out bad cardinals. But I am saying it tells us something, and something not good, about Benedict’s priorities when he openly humiliates a cardinal for criticizing another cardinal who, on the face of it, deserved the criticism.



report abuse
 

crowhill

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm


Everything I’ve heard about the papacy leads to the impression that it’s a byzantine mess of internal squabbles and power plays by effeminate men — many of whom are sexual deviants — but all of whom are obsessed with protecting clericalism at almost any cost.
That seems to be the unfortunate but obvious fact.
Orthodox Catholicism expects me to believe that the collective moral teachings of these men — e.g., on contraception — are infallible.
It’s too big a stretch. There’s too much cognitive dissonance. The mental gymnastics required to maintain that view seem inherently unhealthy.



report abuse
 

Charles Curtis

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm


Only the pope can criticize a cardinal?? Say what? Oh, no. No, No, No, No, No.
This is precisely the sort of thing that cannot stand. I am sorry, but I am just as Catholic as the pope, and the Faith is way too important to be left to a bunch of impotent incompetent eunuchs who cannot seem to defend us from a bunch of satanic deceivers in their own midst, even when the evidence of their crimes was blatant.
I just read Father Trigilio (of EWTN fame) give a lame defense of JP II ignoring Maciel’s crimes.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100625
Such lame insipid bulls*t.
The cult demands we minimize the facts, whitewash the record, and do back flips to ignore and forgive the unforgivable, see.
Enough, already. Enough of cults of personality, and papalolitry. Enough with clericalism. Stop making excuses for the inexcusable.
I remember when the seven accusers first made their case against Maciel back in 1997. I was hanging out with a bunch of people from Regnum Christi, and had been on many Legion sponsored events and retreats. I was drinking some of that cool aid, myself, then..
Still, I knew as soon as I read about them, in my gut, that they were credible, and that it was all true.
The best that can be said for JP II is that could have been ignorant, daft and incompetent. But the pope was made aware of the accusations, too. And Karol Wotyla never struck me as having been daft.
I think it’s pretty clear that like the rest of us, he knew the accusations were credible and simply refused to act.
And that is heart breaking.
Between their program of rank iconoclasm, in which our hierarchy has seen fit to attempt and tear nearly everything mysterious and beautiful out of our tradition; and their systematic effort foist sexual deviants and child molesters on us, to ensure that the maximum number of innocents be besmirched; one might reasonably assume that there is a preconceived plan on the part of our Lords spiritual to destroy the Faith.
Wolves among the sheep. Tares among the wheat. Those who seduce the innocent, and cause the little ones to sin. Who cause the little ones to lose faith.
The pope ought to wise up. I keep trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. This scandal is big enough to destroy the papacy as an institution, if he’s not careful. I thought he was.. I thought he knew what he was about. Now I’m not so sure, anymore.



report abuse
 

MMH

posted June 28, 2010 at 3:53 pm


Marquis’ writes, “Benedict XVI is the pope. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn is not the pope. Rod Dreher is not the pope. Be loyal or be Anglican.” The question is, as always, loyal to what? The answer should be to loyal to the fundamentals, Christ and the truth, not loyal to individuals, no matter what their role. Individual people err in their individual judgments; institutions do likewise.



report abuse
 

CEK

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm


Rod, did you read the head line, or did you read the “Vatican’s” statement? Rhetorical question, because its clear that you didn’t.
Captcha: “Yeasts You”
Indeed, Captcha, indeed.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:12 pm


Cdl. Schoenborn did not deny or even question Church teaching.
He questioned the Vatican’s celibacy requirement for priests.



report abuse
 

Beth

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm


The institutional structure of the Catholic Church will change about the time Hell freezes over. In case anyone has forgotten the Reformation, the Catholic Church’s response to the criticisms of the reformers was to anathematize everyone who disagreed with it.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm


You believe Benedict to be a good and holy man despite a 100% track record of defending and excusing sleaze? Sure he’s read off some progressive sounding statements when his PR guys wrote them, but when push comes to shove he reveals what his true priorities are every time.



report abuse
 

Rod Dreher

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:22 pm


Peter:
He questioned the Vatican’s celibacy requirement for priests.
Couple things, Peter.
1) That’s not what Schoenborn was woodshedded over. He was woodshedded over his criticism of Sodano.
2) I should clarify something on “teaching.” By that, I mean Catholic doctrine and dogma. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine or a dogma. Some Eastern Rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry, and they are completely in union with the Roman see. It is possible for a Catholic to say that the Church should reconsider the mandatory celibacy discipline without questioning the doctrine or dogma of the Church.



report abuse
 

Lee Podles

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm


Sodano received enormous gifts of money from Maciel. Perhaps Sodano used every penny to support orphans. Even if that were the case, he should have been smart enough to know that Maciel was trying to buy support.
I have personally discussed the Groer case with Schoenborn. He told me that he face-to-face pleaded with John Paul to make a statement about Groer, but John Paul refused, explain that “they won’t let me.” “They” – that is, Sodano and the Curia.
Schoenborn has read my book Sacrilege and perhaps it has radicalized him – there can be no mere observation of conventional ecclesiastical courtesies when dealing with diabolical sexual abuse in the Church – and that “ diabolical” may no exaggeration. It is hard to explain the depth of Maciel’s evil and his vast influence on the Church without thinking of the ancient enemy, who may have cloven hoof in this business.



report abuse
 

John

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:40 pm


Rod, I appreciate your comments and attention on this issue. But you have to stop relying on the NYT. I’m not descending into the anti-NYT bit-but Erik has it right in the comment above. You are mischaracterizing what actually occurred because you rely on the NYT account. Look at the actual text of what was said by the Vatican and not said by Schonborn. Calling this being “woodshedded” is getting carried away.



report abuse
 

Denis

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm


I think this has more to do with Schonborn acting as if he were Pope than with what he said about Cardinal Sodano. Just in the past year, Schonborn has declared that the Church should respect homosexual unions, that priestly celibacy is the cause of the pedophilia crisis, and that the Medjugorje apparitions are real. And then there was the Hrlica scandal. All in all, Austria is not much better than Belgium. Cardinal Schonborn would be much better off dealing with the filth in his own backyard rather than trying to exploit the scandals in order to consolidate his own power and promote a liberal agenda.
There’s no good guy in the Sodano-Schonborn squabble. The Church would be much improved if both found some other means of earning a living, along with about 80% of her Cardinals and Bishops. Unfortunately, because of his age and number of heretics and atheists who are Bishops and Cardinals, the Holy Father is in no position to clean the augean stables. He’s sown some seeds for a better harvest some time in the future, but until all the terrible priests, bishops, and cardinals die off, things will not change significantly. Even when the pedophiles are rooted out, there will be plenty of other problematic characters around trying to destroy the church from within, in the name of heresy, secularism, and perversion.



report abuse
 

Jim

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Let’s face it……..the criticism of any bishop by anybody is a criticism of the Pope. The Pope appoints every bishop, so criticizing a bishop is, at root, a criticism of the Pope’s ability to select shepherds for the Church. Of course, critics left and right criticize bishops right and left and somehow the Pope is always left out of the argument. As the Papacy has arrogated the selection of almost every bishop (there are exceptions), it has also made itself the pivot point for all governance. If the system isn’t working, it’s the Pope’s fault….except no one gets around to saying that directly.
Captcha: [honest] rotted yesterday



report abuse
 

Denis

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm


That’s “Hrdlicka”, not “Hrlica”. He’s the Marxist who exhibited an obscene, homoerotic version of the Last Supper in the Vienna Cathedral gallery, with Cardinal Schonborn’s blessing.



report abuse
 

Rod Dreher

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm


If you’ll notice, the account is the AP’s, not the Times’s, though it appeared on the Times website. But that’s nitpicking. I think I was only wrong in that I thought the Vatican did not mention Schoenborn’s statement on clerical celibacy; plainly it did. But Schoenborn most certainly did get woodshedded. You have to understand that all Vatican statements are going to be phrased diplomatically. Here is Rocco Palmo’s translation of the Vatican statement (issued in Italian):
[BEGIN]
1. Today, the Holy Father received in audience Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and President of the Austrian Episcopal Conference. He had asked to report personally to the Supreme Pontiff on the present situation of the Church in Austria. In particular, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn wishes to clarify the exact sense of his recent statements on some aspects of ecclesiastical discipline [read: priestly celibacy], as well as some judgments on the attachment had by the Secretariat of State, and in particular by the then-Secretary of State of Pope John Paul II of venerated memory, as regards the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Gröer, Archbishop of Vienna from 1986 to 1995.
2. Subsequently, invited into the meeting were Cardinals Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals, and Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State.
In the second part of the audience, some widely-circulated misunderstandings partially derived by some comments of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn were clarified and resolved, for which he expressed his regret over the interpretations given.
In particular:
a) It is recalled that in the Church, when accusations are made against a Cardinal, the competence [of judgment] rests solely with the Pope; other instances have a function of consultation, always with the proper respect for persons.
b) The word “chiacchiericcio” ["chatter," "gossip"] was erroneously interpreted as a lack of respect for the victims of sexual abuse, for whom Cardinal Angelo Sodano holds the same sentiments of compassion and condemnation of evil, as expressed in diverse interventions of the Holy Father. That word, pronounced in his Easter address to Pope Benedict XVI, was taken literally from the papal homily of Palm Sunday and referred to the “courage that doesn’t let one be intimidated by the chatter of dominant opinions.”
3. The Holy Father, recalling with great affection his pastoral visit to Austria, conveyed to Cardinal Christoph Schönborn his greetings and encouragement to the Church in Austria and to its pastors, entrusting to the heavenly protection of Mary, so venerated at Mariazell, the path of a renewed ecclesial communion.
[END]
If you don’t think that’s woodshedding, you don’t know how to read these documents. It’s all about face-saving. The statement doesn’t say that Schoenborn erred, and recognized his error; it says that he had “regret over the intepretations” of his words. In other words, the Austrian cardinal is officially sorry people read him the wrong way. Which is nonsense on stilts, but it’s a diplomatic kind of nonsense. And the statement quite plainly says that in Church matters, the only person capable of making a judgment of another cardinal is the Pope. What is not clear about this?



report abuse
 

Denis

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:10 pm


With all due respect to Mr. Podles, but I think he is a little naive about Cardinal Schonborn. The Cardinal spent all of his life in the Austrian Church–with a few years in France–and it took a book written by an American for him to become aware of what had been going on in his own backyard? I’m skeptical.



report abuse
 

Mere Catholic

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:22 pm


Denis, do you not think Schoenborn’s attempt to get a full investigation into Groer reflects an awareness “of what had been going on in his own backyard.” Without the blessing of the Holy Father, Schoenborn could not unilaterally do anything about Groer, whose perversion destroyed lives and killed the faith of many Austrians.



report abuse
 

Mere Catholic

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm


It gives me pause to recall that Cdl. Schoenborn’s public criticism of Sodano was motivated by his attempt to defend Pope Benedict XVI against charges of inaction in the sex abuse scandals. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.



report abuse
 

Denis

posted June 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm


Mere Catholic,
1. Groer wasn’t the only problematic character in the Austrian Church.
2. Why couldn’t Schonborn “do anything” without JPII’s blessing? Would JPII have sent his albino assasins to finish the Cardinal off, or was it just that the Cardinal was too concerned about his career?
I’m sorry, but I simply don’t see Schonborn as some sort of hero. He became active in investigating sexual corruption in the Church when it became politically safe to do so.
That’s not to say that he’s more deserving of criticism than Sodano. The latter is worse, no doubt.
My main concern is that the Holy Father is no longer in control, possibly due to ill health. There was, first of all, the withdrawal of Cardinal Pell as candidate for head of Congregation for Bishops, then the strange words on behalf of Cardinal Danneels–a man who is completely underserving of any support, and who, btw, hates BXVI with a passion–and now the intervention on behalf of Sodano.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted June 28, 2010 at 6:25 pm


I’m with update 1. I wonder who has what on whom.
I’m a total outsider in this, but my historian sense is that the only way the Catholic Church is going to be cleaned out is if the laity do it back by some serious international governmental firepower. In the meantime, those of us who are not Catholic and have always resented the political role played by the Catholic Church can rejoice in the destruction of its moral voice, for now when a Bishop speaks, it is not necessary to debate his ideas, one need merely say, “Throw that man a choirboy!” For if one thing has come out of this, no member of the Roman heirarchy can make a statement on a moral issue and expect any response but ridicule.



report abuse
 

Disgusted in DC

posted June 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm


This was an unfortunate intervention by Pope Benedict. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. Even if Cardinal Sodano was genuinely conned by Cardinal Groer and Father Maciel, the Cardinal of Vienna’s criticisms of him nonetheless remain valid, and it would be best if Sodano, for the good of the Church, retire as Dean of the College of Cardinals. The former is wrong about celibacy, but that is a legitimate opinion within the church, however, regrettable. I do hope, however, he does NOT become too radicalized as a result of Podles book, or We Are Church, or whatever…no good will come of that.



report abuse
 

John

posted June 28, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Either way, using the AP account of things, rather than someone knowledgable like Rocco, is I think a mistake. I think your initial post doesn’t line up with the translation and account provided by Rocco. But once one is open to see everything with respect to sex abuse in the Church as sinister, of course everything here looks bad as well.
The big issue here is Cdl. Schonborn criticizing Sodano for blocking attempts to get rid of Cardinal Groer. The Pope notes that when it comes to accusing Cardinals, only the Pope is capable of judgment. This is a matter of how the Church operates, and the relationship of the hierarchy to each other. This is not some “public humiliation” for speaking out against Sodano in particular, or a “woodshedding” for daring to speak out against the Church with respect to sex abuse issue. I don’t know about the PR of it but there is something going on as well-how the hierarchy interacts. Pretending its all about a “how dare you criticize Sodano” is missing the picture.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 28, 2010 at 8:08 pm


Charles Cosimano: [F]or now when a Bishop speaks, it is not necessary to debate his ideas, one need merely say, “Throw that man a choirboy!”
God forbid one should actually engage ideas regardless of their sources (poisoning the wells, anyone?).
But then again, as a sometime physics teacher and skeptic of the paranormal, I say of Charles’s ideas that there’s no need to debate them–he believes in psychic powers and mind control!



report abuse
 

Mere Catholic

posted June 28, 2010 at 10:39 pm


Denis, what authority did/does canon law provide for Cardinal Schoenborn to have acted against Groer and the other sexual corruption of which you speak? Absolutely none. Did Benedict not make it clear today that one Cardinal cannot even publicly rebuke another? All Cardinal Schoenborn could do as the Archbishop of Vienna was to urge the Pontiff to conduct a full investigation of Groer instead of letting him fade into monastic life. The authority of initiating that investigation belonged to the Pope alone. As far as it being “politically safe” to investigate church corruption, sexual or otherwise, I think the events of today would say that indeed it is not so.



report abuse
 

Erik

posted June 29, 2010 at 12:06 am


Mere Catholic wrote:
“Did Benedict not make it clear today that one Cardinal cannot even publicly rebuke another?”
Actually, no, he didn’t.
See my post above. Relying on the mainstream media to report on intra-religious matters, especially the Church, will just make you dumber than you already are.



report abuse
 

Denis

posted June 29, 2010 at 12:25 am


In light of the discussion of the minuses of amateurism, here’s the analysis of someone with some Vatican expertise:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/kiss-and-make-session-wont-end-debate-sodano
According to Allen:
…on the first point, regarding Groër — which, arguably, is by far the more serious issue — the statement was strikingly reticent. It restricted itself to pointing out that it’s uniquely up to the pope to handle accusations against a cardinal, although others may “consult.”
That language will likely be taken as a rebuke to Schönborn, suggesting that if another cardinal needs to be corrected, that’s the pope’s job and not his. (On the other hand, it could also be read as an implicit acknowledgment that if the ball was dropped on Groër, it was John Paul II, not Sodano, who dropped it.)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 29, 2010 at 5:02 pm


LOL Let me see….’woodshedded’ in the same fashion that McChrystal was ‘woodshedded’ by Obama? Spare the Rod, my dears, and spoil the lieutenents.



report abuse
 

Joseph D'Hippolito

posted June 30, 2010 at 2:10 pm


Here’s a question: Why did Pope Benedict publicly reprimand an archbishops for publicly criticizing another archbishop, but not publicly reprimand the president of the German bishops’ conference for denying on German television the doctrine of expation, to which every Christian denomination adheres?
http://www.podles.org/dialogue/the-disappearance-of-expiation-290.htm
Strange days, indeed. Most peculiar, mama.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Rod Dreher. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Most Recent Scientology Story on Beliefnet! Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:25:02pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mommy explains her plastic surgery
In Dallas (naturally), a parenting magazine discusses how easy it is for mommies who don't like their post-child bodies to get surgery -- and to have it financed! -- to reverse the effects of time and childbirth. Don't like what nursing has done to your na-nas? Doc has just the solution: Doctors say

posted 10:00:56pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Why I became Orthodox
Wrapping up my four Beliefnet years, I was thinking about the posts that attracted the most attention and comment in that time. Without a doubt the most popular (in terms of attracting attention, not all of it admiring, to be sure) was the October 12, 2006, entry in which I revealed and explained wh

posted 9:46:58pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Modern Calvinists
Wow, they don't make Presbyterians like they used to!

posted 8:47:01pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

'Rape by deception'? Huh?
The BBC this morning reported on a bizarre case in Israel of an Arab man convicted of "rape by deception," because he'd led the Jewish woman with whom he'd had consensual sex to believe he was Jewish. Ha'aretz has the story here. Plainly it's a racist verdict, and a bizarre one -- but there's more t

posted 7:51:28pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.