Pope Benedict XVI was falsely accused two weeks ago by The New York Times.
#1
Here's an article you can sink your teeth into.  It basically confirms what we've been saying about ACLU Anderson.

[Natinoal Press]Pope Benedict XVI was falsely accused two weeks ago by The New York Times. That same false charge was repeated and amplified in the National Post. The facts are now in, and even the Times has corrected itself by rewriting the story. Two weeks later, however, and despite its flaws, the story is reverberating around the world. Indeed, without the Times' accusations, the sexual abuse story would not have dominated Holy Week as it did.

On March 25, the Times set off a worldwide firestorm with a front page story that made an incendiary accusation: "Top Vatican officials -- including the future Pope Benedict XVI--did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit."

Falsehood upon falsehood -- four errors in the first paragraph. First, the case to defrock Father Lawrence Murphy was approved by the "top Vatican officials," was never stopped by anyone in Rome and was ongoing when Murphy died. Second, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict, is not shown in the documents to have taken any decisions in this case. Third, the real villain, aside from Murphy himself, was the compromised former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who had sat on the case for 20 years. Fourth, the files were not "newly unearthed"; a general chronology had been released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee years ago, and the documents were released by the archdiocese itself.

The New York Times was guilty of egregiously shoddy reporting -- or worse -- on a story of global implications.

While the case was not new -- the priest died in 1998 -- the charge landed on front pages around the world, including the National Post, because the Pope was supposedly involved. Within days we learned that the Times was false on the facts, suspect in the sources and reckless in the reporting. All of which the paper had to implicitly concede a week later in an extraordinary rewrite by the same author. So what happened? Were the reporter, Laurie Goodstein, and her editors merely careless, genuinely duped or willing collaborators in an orchestrated smear?

The story did not get the extra scrutiny it deserved. The documents on which the story was based did not support the newsworthy charge against the Pope. After the National Post repeated the charges on our front page on March 26, I read all the documents, posted at the Times web-site. I wrote a point-by-point rebuttal, which was immediately linked to all over the world and played a contributing role in exposing the Times story. (It can be found now at fatherdesouza.ca)For those who knew this file, the sources used screamed out for greater scrutiny. The first was Jeffrey Anderson, who gave the documents to Goodstein, a longtime reporter on Vatican affairs who covers the religion beat. Anderson is the most prolific contingency-fee lawyer in suing the

Church, from which he has made tens of millions. He has current civil suits pending against the Vatican. It is in his direct financial interest to promote the public perception of complicity by the Pope. That alone should have prompted Goodstein to examine what the documents showed and to inquire of others whether there were other relevant documents that he did not give her. Instead, her story accepted fully the Anderson spin.



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1af21fbf-e188-440d-8615-8c2deaae096b&p=1#ixzz0kxWTlMwa
Reply
#2
Thank you for posting this!

Prayers for the Holy Father as we approach the anniversary of his pontificate.

Pax vobiscum,
Jesse
Reply
#3
(04-13-2010, 11:21 AM)Jesse Wrote: Thank you for posting this!

Prayers for the Holy Father as we approach the anniversary of his pontificate.

Pax vobiscum,
Jesse

Make sure all of your friends know about the ACLU/Marxist attack on the Catholic Church and Western Cvilization (Christendom). 
Reply
#4
I had a feeling from day 1 that the main player in this scandal cover-up was "Bishop" Weakland. They couldn't fool me even if they tried! The New York Slime has had Satan's helpers running that rag for years!

I'm praying for the Holy Father!! :pray:
Reply
#5
Made this article my facebook status.

Nice how they printed their revoke on page 6.  Idiots.


Would there be any possibility of legal action against the New York Times?  For false advertising maybe (after all, a lie did sell them a ton of papers....)
Reply
#6


God help us all!!  :pray:
Reply
#7
(04-13-2010, 11:49 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: I had a feeling from day 1 that the main player in this scandal cover-up was "Bishop" Weakland. They couldn't fool me even if they tried!

I knew he had to be involved in it too. Just look at his record. The only reason the times didn't report about Weakland's complicity is they love him because he's a dissenting pervert.
Reply
#8
(04-13-2010, 10:40 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(04-13-2010, 11:49 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: I had a feeling from day 1 that the main player in this scandal cover-up was "Bishop" Weakland. They couldn't fool me even if they tried!

I knew he had to be involved in it too. Just look at his record. The only reason the times didn't report about Weakland's complicity is they love him because he's a dissenting pervert.


Hahaha, but of course, nothing new there!
The sad part is they all praised that other midwesterner ol' "Cardinal" Bernardin with his deceitful Seamless Garment of Life theory and those other social programs that were pretty much hidden Marxist philosophies, though they were never directly implied a such, not to mention he was a big proponent of Ecumenicism....God, it angers me that some of my neoconservative and neo-catholic buddies still think Bernardin was "such a highly intellectual conservative Cardinal of his time." :puke:

People can't learn the truth anymore because the news reporting is shot to sh*t every where you look! Sadly, you really have to do your own research and dig deep if you want to find the truth!
Reply
#9
Does anyone have a link to the New York TImes story correcting itself on page 6? I cannot find it.
Reply
#10
Anyone?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)