Time Magazine chooses, usually poorly, some “person of the year”. Time this year included Benedict XVI among “people who matter”, indicating his “Highs” and “Lows”.
Time usually gets things about the Catholic Church wrong. I suspect they do that on purpose. This time, however, I think the writer just doesn’t have a clue.
First, ask yourself by what criteria things are “high” or “low”.
My emphases and comments:
Highs: While [This means "in spite of the fact that", which means that what follows is bad...] the Pope remains firm on his decree that ordaining women as priests is a grave crime (the same designation given to pedophilia), [This is just plain dopey. That fact that the crime of pretending to ordain a woman is a grave crime, that doesn't mean that it is as bad, or is as bad in the same way, as the crime of harming a child.] he was willing to loosen up [how clever the writer is] — albeit ever so slightly — on another firmly-held edict. [Again, this is dopey. The Church's teaching about the use of contraceptives is not an "edict". But watch for this slight of hand. She pretends to be making a knowledgeable distinction and then falls flat on her face again. ] But while [There's that "while" as "in spite of" again...] headlines around the world claimed Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the use of condoms, what the Pope actually said [Oh those rascally headlines!] was a bit different. [And here she gooooooes!] He still strongly disapproves of condom use as contraception, and said only that a male prostitute may choose to use a condom to prevent the spread of the HIV infection. [She is either a dope or is purposely distorting the facts. She can't have missing the numberless explanations of the Holy Father's remarks, clarifications from the Holy See. The Pope said that, in that instance, were a male prostitute to choose to use a condom that choice would be a first step towards a more human morality. He stated clearly that condoms are not a solution to anything. But, for the writer, that was a "high"!]
Lows: [If those were "highs" what are the "lows"?] Accusations of sexual abuse first from Ireland and later mainland Europe smashed any remaining perception that predatory priests were an American anomaly [HUH? Who thought they were restricted to the Americans? Also, the very idea of the "predatory priest" is itself the anomaly. They are a tiny percentage of priests, and not greater than the incidence of predators who prey on minors than in other religious groups or sectors of life. ] and thrust the Vatican into its greatest crisis since the 2002 revelations of abuse in the U.S. The scandal brought the church’s standing to a new low [I am surprised this isn't a "high" for Time, given the other "highs".] among believers in Europe and, in March when allegations surfaced in Germany, turned the spotlight on the Pontiff himself. [Here we go again... the same twisting of the facts...] It seems 30 years ago, during a brief tenure in Munich, the Pope, then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, had transferred a known abusive priest to his own archdiocese, ostensibly for therapy. But just days after his arrival, the priest was allowed to serve among the flock and subsequent sexual assaults occurred. While Benedict has done a number of substantial things to deal with the crisis, including meeting with abuse victims and accepting the resignation of high-ranking clerics, he remains silent on his time in Germany. [Nasty, that. This implies that, just because the Pope isn't gabbling about it, he must be guilty of something. Again, there were numerous explanations and clarifications. But all we have here is a baseless "J'accuse!"]
For shame, Kayla.
And, oh yes, Time named Mark Elliot Zuckerberg as Person of the Year. Discerning lot, those editors of Time.