like mandates without a shepherd

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Jul 09, 2010

The New York Times is unhappy with Pope Benedict.

(No, really; I'm serious. What: you're not surprised?)

Having spent the past several weeks pushing biased and misleading stories to suggest that Pope Benedict has blocked action against sexual abuse, the Times now concludes that the "facts" have been assembled, or perhaps (dare we hope?) the prosecution is ready to rest its case, so now the paper can deliver its verdict in an editorial saying that Pope Benedict should take action against sexual abuse. The money quote:

In this spirit, Benedict has the obligation to shepherd not just guidelines but credible mandates that all priest-abusers and bishops who abetted their crimes face disclosure and punishment.

How do you shepherd mandates, by the way? Is there a different technique for shepherding guidelines? Editorial writers at the Times should not assume that we poor readers share their depth of expertise on such pastoral matters.

Next question: Are there really people out there who think that Pope Benedict has not already issued mandates requiring disclosure and punishment for abusive priests and enabling bishops? Yes, no doubt there are: the poor people who get their information from the New York Times.