Catholic Transcript Online

Is there any doubt that large segments of the secular media are deliberately targeting Pope Benedict XVI, with the intention of minimizing his pastoral authority to speak about the doctrinal and moral weaknesses of the age? At least three times within the past few years, the Holy Father’s clear message has been manifestly distorted or ridiculed.

The most recent example was a story about recourse to condoms in anti-AIDS programs. Visiting Africa late in March, the Holy Father was asked about condom use in anti-AIDS programs. The core of Benedict’s precisely phrased answer was that a significant moral change in personal lifestyles, as well as in commitment, was necessary. The Holy Father’s refusal, primarily for solid moral reasons, to endorse condom use, apparently enraged many newspaper reporters and TV commentators. An editorial in the New York Times hysterically declared the Pontiff undeserving of credence for distorting "scientific findings about the value of condoms in slowing the spread of the AIDS virus."

The reality of the situation, however, is quite otherwise, as a Harvard University expert argued in defense of the Pope. (April Transcript, p. 14) "Impeach the Pope," proposed by The Washington Post, is nothing but a crude cry born of ignorance.

Prior to the erroneous reporting about AIDS in Africa, there was the shabby reporting about the Pontiff’s removing the excommunications of four schismatic bishops belonging to the Society of St. Pius X, who were illegitimately ordained to the episcopate by the schismatic Archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1988. It came to light that one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, had stated that the number of Jews exterminated during the Shoah was much smaller than the accepted claim of six million. Somehow, rather bizarrely, both the usual critics of Benedict as well as large sectors of the media, attempted to label the Pope as at least sympathetic to such an arrogantly erroneous position. This allegation was repeated, despite Benedict’s affirmations to the contrary. For example, in Cologne, he recalled an earlier pilgrimage to Auschwitz–Birkenau when he said: "It is beyond question that any denial or minimization of this terrible crime [the Shoah] is intolerable and altogether unacceptable."

By choosing to ignore the Holy Father’s many earlier references to the Shoah, secular media were widely complicit in spreading a false impression.

Earlier still, there was the story about Benedict’s superb academic address at the University of Regensburg on 12 Sept. 2006. Without any reference to the overall context, some reporters zeroed in on a single quotation, made centuries ago, attributed to one scholar in dialogue with another, while these reporters chose to leave the impression that the extreme stance expressed by one of the scholars coincided with the Pope’s personal outlook. In fact, the Holy Father actually introduced the controverted quotation with the phrase, spoken in German, "Here I quote." In no way, given the context, could the quotation reported be attributed to Benedict himself.

Of the three above-cited assaults on the Papacy, the one pertaining to the removal of the excommunication of the four schismatic bishops was so puzzling to the Holy Father that he chose to send a special Letter to all Catholic Bishops about it. In this most unusual communication, Benedict recalled St. Paul’s monitum to the Galatians: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another."

Such "biting and devouring," Benedict said, "also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom…"

The Holy Father is correct, of course. How is it that, in any of the three incidents cited above, self-styled Catholics feel that they must embrace the irrational adverse criticisms against the Papacy and the Church that arise from the myths circulated by the secular media, myths which stir cynicism, anger and even hatred.

Responsible journalism demands as an ethical norm, accuracy as to facts and context. And all readers must be more discerning.