Andrew Sullivan Tagged for Rampant Falsehoods About Catholic Church, Pope
[HT: Thomas Peters, American Papist at CatholicVote.org] Following a debate the other night with Maggie Gallagher on the topic of gay "marriage," pundit Andrew Sullivan has been cited for airing a number of falsehoods and lies about the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict.
1. The most egregious and malicious falsehood in the debate from the openly gay Sullivan was his claim that Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, opined in 1986 that homosexuals "deserve violence" given their "desire to change society."
In fact, in his 1986 letter "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the complete opposite of what Sullivan claims:
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs.
Sullivan said he was "paraphrasing" what the Cardinal wrote, but, even so, Sullivan unequivocally deceived the audience. By the way, Ratzinger's 1986 letter is an excellent resource to direct to that friend or colleague at work who claims that the Church is "anti-gay." Check it out.
2. Sullivan also falsely claimed, "The current pope, knowing that a child under his auspices had been raped by a priest under his authority, covered it up and sent that rapist to go rape other children."
Sullivan is way off base on this one, too. Sullivan refers to a case in the early 1980's regarding a priest in Munich, Peter Hullermann. The New York Times flimsily trumpeted the case last spring. Needless to say, Cardinal Ratzinger did not "cover up" anything, nor did he "[send] that rapist to go rape other children." As Philip Lawler at CatholicCulture.org has shown, other Church officials assigned Father Hullermann "7 months after Cardinal Ratzinger resigned his post as Archbishop of Munich, having taken up his new responsibilities as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [at the Vatican]." There is no evidence whatsoever that Cardinal Ratzinger was aware of Hullermann's assignment.
American Papist/Thomas Peters has more (1, 2), and Kathleen Gilbert at LifeSiteNews.com has an excellent write-up of the debate as well.
The debate took place Wednesday night (12/8/10) at Georgetown University. A shady group called "Catholics for Equality" has been connected to the event. Though they claim the term in their title, they are anything but "Catholic." Archbishop Donald Cardinal Wuerl of Washington D.C. has slammed the organization by saying that it is "not a Catholic organization" and that it "was formed in opposition to Catholic teaching."
-- Dave Pierre is the author of the heralded new book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church.
- Dave Pierre's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
demagogue
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:46pm.
demagogue
a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.Interesting Choice For a Definition
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:16pm.
ROTFLMAO!!
Can you say "Obama"?
Regardless, your definition plays into my long time tagline...
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Andy hates Catholics and the
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:01pm.
Andy hates Catholics and the Catholic church simply because no matter how many lewd advances he made back when he was an alter boy, the priests of his parish for the most part ignored him, except for the extra 100 Hail Mary's they made him recite.
You would think after all these years he'd just let it go, but oh no not Andrew Sullivan.Everytime one of his boyfriends piss him off, it's the Catholic churches fault ya know.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Typical Lib...
Submitted by adamsmith on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:02pm.
Sully don't need no stinkin' facts. His made up tales are just so much more interesting. Just like all the other Lib idiots....They think emotionally, rather than employing logic. KInda like bringing a Swiss Army knife to a gun fight....
Denial
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:18pm.
Unfortunately, gays stoke their anger against the Catholic Church by perpetuating complete lies. And like alcoholics in denial, they can't let go of them, even when the evidence is presented every time against them.
Perfect!
Submitted by Soldat44 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:47pm.
Perfect!
They can't (won't) let go
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 8:54pm.
because they don't need no stinking facts!
They have a "consensus."
And if then-Cardinal Ratzinger didn't cover up for the rapist, they are certain that he would have, if he'd been in charge.
So the fact that he didn't means nothing.
"Rawmuscleglutes" is an anti-Christian bigot
Submitted by OxyCon on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 8:13pm.
word
Sullivan probably referred to the next paragrahph:
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:35pm.
"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."
Furthermore in the debate he made a distinction which is, due to the lack of a transcript, lost here.
1.) His paraphrasing of the above quote is:
"we should not be surprised that violence is waged against homosexuals given their desire to change society to conform to what they believe, one of the consequences – unfortunate consequences nonetheless of the push for gay equality will be violence against gay people. "
2.) He then describes what impact these words had on him:
"Which I felt and I think most normal readers of that sentence would agree was a kind of warning that if we do start standing up for ourselves we deserve violence.[...]it was definitely at the time very disturbing to hear."
I've spoken to people who
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:59pm.
I've spoken to people who have said "nobody should be surprised if there is violence against Christians" for their opposition to gay rights, because gay individuals are being hurt, and the response of violence is a result of their personal damage.
And others who've said that "nobody should be surprised that Muslim terrorists are committing violence against the West".
I understand the gay rights perspective on this, the liberal foreign policy perspective, and equally I understand the perspective that is being explained here. I think all three of these types of statements are treading on dangerous ground, and we have a responsibility to not speak about possible violence in such dismissive terms.
But Andrew Sullivan should have been asked a follow-up question, if he wasn't, to see if he had a double standard.
semantics?
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 11:27pm.
Sullivan distorts the second paragraph with his "paraphrasing" and ignores the first paragraph where the pope explicitly states that violence against homosexuals is clearly never to be condoned.
The distortion in the second paragraph is gregious at best. Sullivan implies that the pope expects violence when homosexuals push for their rights. Again, false. Read the paragraph again. The pope is suggesting that no one should be surprised that "violent reactions increase."
The pope is NOT suggesting that violent reactions WILL increase or SHOULD increase, just that we shouldn't be surprised IF there is violence.
I suggest that greater care by secularists (Christianophobes???) like Sulivan should be taken to truly understand the context of the pope's statements, rather than over-react over what these people think he said.
[Where's my signature???]
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"