Grundig artikkel som kritiserer The Pennsylvania Grand-Jury Report
En kjent amerikansk journalist og redaktør, Peter Steinfels, har skrevet en svært lang artikkel der han kritiserer The Pennsylvania Grand-Jury Report (som kom i august 2018, er på 800-1300 sider, og går gjennom alle kjente tilfeller av seksuelt misbruk av katolske prester i seks bispedømmer i Pennsylvania de siste 70 år), og kaller den «Inaccurate, Unfair & Misleading». Han skriver bl.a.:
In fact, the report makes not one but two distinct charges. The first one concerns predator priests, their many victims, and their unspeakable acts. That charge is, as far as can be determined, dreadfully true. Appalling as is this first charge, it is in fact the second one that has had the greatest reverberations. “All” of these victims, the report declares, “were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institutions above all.” Or as the introduction to the report sums it up, “Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all.”
Is that true?
Almost every media story of the grand-jury report that I eventually read or viewed was based on its twelve-page introduction and a dozen or so sickening examples.
On the basis of reading the report’s vast bulk, on the basis of reviewing one by one the handling of hundreds of cases, on the basis of trying to match diocesan replies with the grand jury’s charges, and on the basis of examining other court documents and speaking with people familiar with the grand jury’s work, including the attorney general’s office, my conclusion is that this second charge is in fact grossly misleading, irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust. It is contradicted by material found in the report itself—if one actually reads it carefully. It is contradicted by testimony submitted to the grand jury but ignored—and, I believe, by evidence that the grand jury never pursued.






Siste bok jeg leste under årets opphold på Gran Canaria var interessant, den beskrev ganske grundig menighetsliv, liturgi og messefeiring i flere kirker i York i England de siste par hundre årene før reformasjonen. 

Jeg har for noen dager siden lest ferdig The Theological Origins of Modernity av Michael Allen Gillespie. I stor grad handler den om hvordan den nye filosofien nominalismen ble populær litt før Martin Luthers tid og førte til (det er kanskje litt sterkt sagt) både reformasjonen og etter hvert moderne filosof og vårt moderne samfunn. 
Nå har jeg lest ferdig en interessant bok som jeg kjøpte (på salg) i St Olav bokhandel for et par år siden. Det er The Conversion of Scandinavia av den svenske historikeren Anders Winroth – som underviser ved Yale (les om ham 

Før jul kjøpte vi Pollestads oversettelse av Heimskringla/Norske kongesagaer. 




