In which I begin to suspect that the media actively refuses to properly quote the Pope
Pope Benedict XVI isn’t actually that hard to understand — he’s obviously a very intelligent, very well-read man, but he is usually able to present his thoughts in an accessible, everyday sort of way. So I can’t put the media’s utter incapacity to understand what he says down to simple misunderstanding on their part.
In a recent sermon, the Pontiff called for an “ecology of man.” What does that mean?
“Given that faith in the Creator is an essential element of the Christian creed, the Church can not and should not limit itself to transmitting to the faithful only the message of salvation…It also has a responsibility with creation, and it has to fulfill this responsibility in public.”
The Pontiff added that while the Church needs to “defend the earth, water, air, as gifts of the creation that belongs to all of us [... ], it must also protect the human being from his own destruction.”
“It is necessary that there be something such as an ecology of man, understood in the proper manner.”
Which sounds pretty good so far, and isn’t anything new. The Pope — and the Church more generally — has always been committed to the idea of environmental stewardship. This shouldn’t be confused with rote environmentalism, but should rather be understood as an “everything in moderation” approach, and a call to utilize the resources the Earth provides not only to their fullest potential, but to their most just potential, in a way that causes neither massive ecological harm nor massive social injustice and inequality.
So what caused the problem?
Well, the Pope unpacked his “ecology of man” remark a bit more:
This human ecology, he affirmed, is based on respecting the nature of the person, and the two genders of masculine and feminine.
See the “uh oh” yet, good reader?
“It is not outmoded metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected.”
He said it has more to do with “faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, the contempt of which will lead to the self destruction of humanity.”
The Pope warned against the manipulation that takes place in national and international forums when the term “gender” is altered.
“What is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender,’ is definitively resolved in the self-emancipation of the human being from creation and the Creator,” he warned. “Man wants to create himself, and to decide always and exclusively on his own about what concerns him.”
The Pontiff said this is man living “against truth, against the creating Spirit.”
“The rain forests certainly deserve our protection, but man as creature indeed deserves no less,” he added.
The headline in the Times this morning?
Pope accused of stoking homophobia after he equates homosexuality to climate change
Hunh? What? Did I miss something?
Here the Pope is talking, rather plainly, about the shape of creation that God has set out, which includes the complementary nature of man and woman. He notes that this complementarity and natural order, like all of nature, should be preserved, rather than cast aside in pursuit of worldly ends and base pleasures.
And this is apparently the same as comparing homosexuality to climate change? This is stoking homophobia?
Good grief.
It’s getting increasingly difficult to accept that people are just misunderstanding the Pope and what he says. He spoke, in this case, very plainly. The Times article — and the gay rights groups it cites — doesn’t just mis-quote him, it actively twists what was said into something totally different, something entirely missing from the original lecture the Pope gave.
And that isn’t an accident. Or, at least, I can’t believe it is.
Update: Not an accident, but in fact something far more sinister — an outright lie. Either that or Reuters has the most incompetent translators on the face of the planet.
Hmm. While reading Mr. Ratzinger’s pronouncement, the words “Pot,” Kettle” and, “Black” come to mind.
Mr. Ratzinger appears to want to spread the blame and reduce the focus on the destructive behavior within his own organization.
Many priests and laity who are under his control have been perpetrating crimes against children, as has been so adequately covered by news media, outraged parents and evidenced by the large sums of money his organization has been required to pay as a small form of restitution for damaged lives. It has largely been homosexuality that his people, the ones whom church members are instructed to trust, have been guilty of. Paedophilia is another destructive behaviour that his people harbour and hazard that comes to mind.
I think that if Mr. Ratzinger wants to “defend” the human race against some form of destruction, then cleaning his organization of the the same thing that he is concerned about would sounds like a reasonable and appropriate place to start.
Until he does that, his words and commitments are pretty hollow and meaningless. It’s probably important to note the fact, however, that in his words, he wishes to divide rather than unite the human race that he so wants to defend.
Maybe we need to be defended against him and his organization. If the news is correct, then they seem pretty dangerous to everyone.
So much error, so little time.
The sums paid out in restitution have been high, it’s true…but equally, what has been paid out (and, additionally, the amount and scope of news coverage devoted to the topic) has been grossly out of proportion to the actual scope of the problem.
Not to deny that there is a problem, of course. From 1950 to 2002, 4,400 out of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors. Since I’ve seen a few false accusations made against priests I’ve known, we can assume that the actual number of priests who have committed these offences is even less than 4,400.
And one notes that even if all 4,400 are actually guilty (again: unlikely), that’s still only a 4% offence rate. Which is actually substantially lower than in other professions that have close interactions with children: teachers are 100 times more likely to abuse children sexually.
Also, it should be noted that while the Church (especially in the US) did drop the ball initially when it came to dealing with offending priests, they’ve really stepped up their game, and are now far and away the most proactive organization when it comes to dealing with child abusers in its midst: “No other institution in the U.S. – public or private – has corrected its policies and procedures in any way, shape or form similar to our church.”
That has been true…which is why the Church, under Benedict XVI, has proposed tightening the admittance requirements for seminaries somewhat, and then to great controversy, by making it more difficult (if not nearly impossible) for celibate gay men to become priests.
Not that all celibate gay men are paedophiles, of course…but one notes that by and large, the abuse in the church has been male-male in nature, which is telling.
One notes, also, that in the field of education, homosexuals are still heavy offenders, committing abuse in numbers wildly disproportionate to their supposed distribution in the general population.
You’re behind the times — Ratzinger has been a staunch proponent of just this course of action, and has seen it implemented as well. The Church now deals very quickly with abuse cases, and very harshly with the perpetrators in them.
They should have been doing that all along, granted. But again drawing on the example of education, one notes that whereas the Church has begun to stamp down hard on priests and bishops complicit in “hush jobs” relating to sexual abuse, the problem of silence is still rampant in the field of education.
Since what you ask for has been underway for some time now, I take this to mean that his words are not, in fact, hollow and meaningless after all? Or would you prefer to cite an alternative reason why we should disregard them?
Then let us first defend ourselves and our children against those who would claim to be their secular educators, what say?
Steynianism 301 « Free Canuckistan! (December 28, 2008, 7:09 pm).
[...] BUT OF COURSE the Media lied about Pope’s ’save the gay rainforest’ speech; Time Immortal: “In which I begin to suspect that the media actively refuses to properly quote the [...]
Steynianism 301 (December 29, 2008, 2:14 am).
[...] BUT OF COURSE the Media lied about Pope’s ’save the gay rainforest’ speech; Time Immortal: “In which I begin to suspect that the media actively refuses to properly quote the [...]