Koumoullis, should have followed his initial instinct, as expressed in the opening words of his piece; he said he didn’t want to write about high priests et cetera. Think of all that printer’s ink he could have saved. However, he has found a piece of fiction that falls in line with his desires, and the rest is, (one of the more trivial pieces of), history. It is not as though it hasn’t happened before. Think, for instance, of all the people who directed their hatred at Pope Pius XII on the basis of that other piece of fiction, Rolf Hochhuth’s The Deputy.
When he embarks on a description of the film, Koumoullis, like so many journalists these days, cannot stick to the facts, but insists on editorializing. For instance, the reference to sinking as a comment on a return to the truth that has held the Church together for two millennia:“the Catholic Church sank deeper into conservatism. Benedict XVI remained committed to the traditional views of the Church.”
He goes on to comment that contraception “was considered of vital importance in restricting the spread of Aids in Africa”, as if that was the consensus, when another large body of opinion preferred more moral remedies than harm-minimization.
I’d like to know what evidence Koumoullis has for this statement, “Benedict entertained the self-delusion that he and his predecessor, John Paul II, had solved all the pending problems plaguing the Church” other than that Anthony Hopkins is a good actor. He is so easily convinced when it comes to confirming his biases. After enduring a lot more of this piece, one comes to another example of easy conversion, (as if he needed to be converted), when he refers to the Pope’s token of compassion in taking 12 orphans back to the Vatican. Lucky 12! How fortunate for them that the Pope needed some pawns!
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »