Damian Thompson writes in today’s Telegraph that Cardinal George Pell’s loss of his anticipated appointment as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops owes to “black propaganda” and a “smear campaign” stemming from long-discredited misconduct allegations and dubious charges of poor health:
I now have good reason to believe that Cardinal Pell—a man of towering presence and intellect, utterly faithful to Pope Benedict’s vision for renewing the Church—is the victim of a smear campaign endorsed by certain bishops, especially Italian ones, who are desperate to stop Pell cleaning up what are in effect the “rotten boroughs” of their dioceses. We must pray that the Holy Father ignores the campaign.
Rumors and whispers from other journalists confirm Thompson is not alone in suspecting political motives behind Pell’s downfall. If the rumors prove true, we can seek consolation knowing such political machinations are not mere products of our age—they are, rather, the stuff that has proved the Church’s survivability, even since the first disciple injected politics into the spiritual economy, asking, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
June 17th, 2010 | 6:24 pm
On the one hand, I’m a fan of Pell, and I wouldn’t be suprised to find that people within the church resist his embrace of orthodox Catholic doctrine. On the other hand – “Rumors and whispers from other journalists confirm Thompson is not alone in suspecting…” – talk about a weak story. So Thompson (w/o providing any names or sources) wants us to take his word for it that there are Italian bishops endorsing a smear campaign, and then you encourage us to take Thompson’s word for it because other journalists are trading rumors and whispers? Give me a break.
June 18th, 2010 | 9:23 am
J,
Neither Thompson nor I present the case as settled or proven, but merely point to two pieces of evidence (not just the rumors confirming Thompson’s thesis) that indicate there is some truth to the suspicion we hold. As Thompson wrote, the reasons cited for Pell’s rejection/recusal were 1) his poor health and 2) a decade-old sex-abuse allegation. Since 2 has been exhaustively proven false and 1 is highly dubious (especially in view of the health of Pell’s peer clergymen), it’s not unreasonable to believe there’s a third motive at work.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact