"Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world."

Wow. Unless you allow widespread contraception and abortion, you don't care for the poor. Really?

"In April of 2014, Pope Francis announced his plan for a fall meeting of senior clerics to discuss topics including contraception and gay marriage."

Wait. Is this the Synod on the Family?

"The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular."

Oh right. I had a suspicion that's what I was. Glad I didn't fall for it and send a fat check to Peter's Pence.

I am laughing my head off--but silently so that I won't keep my granddaughter awake.

I'm sorry to hear that 7 out of 10 Catholics are completely ignorant about what the Pope has been saying, but it doesn't really surprise me too much.

AMDG

"Are they suggesting that the walls be white washed?"

I wonder if anyone ever gets worked up about governments having nice places to receive diplomats. It might be worse for the Church to waste money than for secular governments, but if it's a waste of money that could be used to help the poor, it's a waste in both cases.

The bit about the Pope refusing to meet victims of child abuse that took place on his watch is disturbing, though. I'd hoped - well, assumed - he'd live up to Benedict's standards, which included willingness to meet abuse victims.

I wasn't aware of that, either. In fact I had the vague impression that he had done something of that sort, but I don't follow papal news very closely at all.

I found this article to be quite reassuring. I was getting worried. :/

Salon was always bad but now it's turning into The Onion.

John L. Allen Jr. wrote a detailed piece in the National Catholic Reporter about how then Cardinal Bergoglio handled sex abuse cases in Argentina. He starts by jumping off from the Washington Post story on two specific cases (this is the Post piece the Salon writer relied on):

In general, the [Washington Post] story suggested Bergoglio did not handle either case by the standards now accepted by the church in other parts of the world. It noted he did not meet victims, did not offer apologies or financial restitution, and did not take ecclesiastical action against the priests involved.

To begin with, here's an important point not made in the Post story or in most subsequent commentary: Neither Grassi nor Sasso is a priest of the Buenos Aires archdiocese, and thus they were never under Bergoglio's direct supervision. (Among other things, that means Bergoglio was never in a position to impose ecclesiastical punishment, which would have to be done by their own bishops.)

Beyond that, observers say the two situations should be considered separately because Bergoglio's degree of involvement differs.

The rest is here.

Which is basically what I was saying eleven hours and 59 minutes before you posted this.

AMDG