Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[Desdemona]

Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.

The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.

The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.

The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.

After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.

During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.

So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.

And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:

Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.

It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.

An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.

That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:

“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”

The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.

[Alamo-Girl]

Once more.

Humility, not pride:

O LORD our Lord, how excellent [is] thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas.

O LORD our Lord, how excellent [is] thy name in all the earth! - Psalms 8

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[kosta50]

Of course, neither the theology of original sin in its Augustinian version, or immaculate conception of Mary is spelled out with any precision in the Holy Scripture. Both are supported by it but not uniquely mandated by it

Right, they are a result, or rather a consequence, of an ambigiuous verse (Rom 5:12) which can be correctly read in two different ways. So, right there goes the idea that the scriptures inherently have a clear meaning (even in the original language).

The original language allows us to see the meaning in relation to other possible meanings. For example, both "ordain" (τάσσω) and "prepare" (ἑτοιμάζω) are used in the original New Testament

I didn't follow the discussion you had with Dr. E vis-a-vis Eph 2:10. But I would like observe that the same προετοιμάζω which in KJV Eph 2:10 reads as "before ordained" is translated in Rom 9:23 as "afore prepared".

What we have here is an example of two different English words, with distinctly different meaning ("ordain" carries the weight of a decree; "prepared" doesn't.), created by the translation out of one and the same word in the original.

[Alamo-Girl]

Again, I must bring the words of God to bear. They just keep surfacing within me.

Truly, if we refuse to humble ourselves, He will humble us:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. - Matthew 3:9

And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to prove thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. – Deut 8:2

For the day of the LORD of hosts [shall be] upon every [one that is] proud and lofty, and upon every [one that is] lifted up; and he shall be brought low: - Isaiah 2:12

And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, [saying, It is] the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. – Acts 12:21-23

And again,

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. – 2 Cor 12:7-10

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[kosta50]

I've not seen you hold back before, nor has the reception of your ideas seemed to make you shy about expressing them.

I am not holding back, I just don't want to get bogged down in another time-consuming marathon discussion with half a dozen or more individuals at this time. I just don't have the time right now.

Suffice it to say that no matter how much you try you will never make a quilt look like something made out of one piece. It will always be something stitched together.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" -- Romans 9:23

Same thing as "ordain." God "prepared unto glory" those vessels He had created to display His mercy.

Men spend a lot of time and effort trying to divest God of His choices and give that ability to men.

Paul tells us clearly God has created one man to illustrate His mercy and one man to illustrate His judgment. For no reason in themselves (or salvation would be reward and not mercy,) but only for His own good pleasure, God gives the former eyes to see, ears to hear, a heart of flesh and a renewed mind to know the things of God, to repent and believe to the saving of his soul.

The latter God leaves to his own devices which is exactly where all men want to be unless and until they've been reborn by the Holy Spirit which is God's choice, not men's.

I realize this is jarring to free-will synergists who've bought the line that men are captains of their own fate. Thankfully, that is not true, or we'd all go down with the ship.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

[shibumi]

"Suffice it to say that no matter how much you try you will never make a quilt look like something made out of one piece. It will always be something stitched together."

And with that, dear brother, you have hit on what makes the Body of Scripture so miraculous.

That a document of so many parts, from so many authors shows the guidance of a single Divine Hand in its construction. That it should tell a story so simple on the literal level that a child can understand it, yet contain so many levels of meaning, up to and including hyperdimensional formulae and the source of mystical inspiration.

No other effort of combined writing could have been so successful and compelling, nor told a story that withstands the test of time, heresy, apostasy and simple human error.

No matter how it may be patched together, or how many people try to pick out inaccuracies in subtle translation, the story of Divine Love for mankind and the ultimate sacrifice to achieve redemption shines through.

I know it kind of bugs you that so many people can derive this inspiration from something you view as cobbled together and defective, but you are viewing it through the eyes of an adult.

In your attempt to deny the truth of the story, you have provided a living example of the truth of Christ's words in Matthew 18:3 Unless you change in heart and become as little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

There's plenty of room for you here on the playground, brother.

[Alamo-Girl]

Well and truly said, dear brother in Christ!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

That a document of so many parts, from so many authors shows the guidance of a single Divine Hand in its construction. That it should tell a story so simple on the literal level that a child can understand it, yet contain so many levels of meaning, up to and including hyperdimensional formulae and the source of mystical inspiration.

No other effort of combined writing could have been so successful and compelling, nor told a story that withstands the test of time, heresy, apostasy and simple human error.

No matter how it may be patched together, or how many people try to pick out inaccuracies in subtle translation, the story of Divine Love for mankind and the ultimate sacrifice to achieve redemption shines through.

AMEN!

As my husband reminds me, Christianity is the only faith that actually brings with it true contentment and peace of mind because Christ accomplished for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

If this is made known to us by a "quilt," then it is a quilt whose compilation is a unified whole, capable of covering all of Christ's flock and bringing them to a saving faith.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. My choice has been made. It’s pretty clear. I can’t help it if you missed it. Or why.

[D-fendr]

I didn’t miss your choice.

And.... Q.E.D. yet again.

thanks for your replies.

[betty boop]

That a document of so many parts, from so many authors shows the guidance of a single Divine Hand in its construction. That it should tell a story so simple on the literal level that a child can understand it, yet contain so many levels of meaning, up to and including hyperdimensional formulae and the source of mystical inspiration.

Plus no part of it contradicts any other part. The Holy Scriptures are amazingly correlated, wholly congruent, and mutually reinforcing.

This is not accidental. Though there were many "pens," all were used by "a single Divine Hand."

Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your wonderful insights!

[Alamo-Girl]

This is not accidental. Though there were many "pens," all were used by "a single Divine Hand."

Amen!!!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[TXnMA]

Outstanding posts! Thank you!!

(A-G & bb: FReepMail for you...)

[kosta50]

Same thing as "ordain

Ordain and prepare are not synonyms. The former carries the weight of a binding decree. But if we are to create concordance by s t r e t c h i n g the meaning than anything can be made smooth. It is still a human decision that alters the original text.

Your argument reminds me of Sara Palin latest gaff. She coined a word "refudiate" the way our G W coined "misunderestimate." (I guess both "used to could" speak proper English!). Instead of admitting the misspoke, because eh obviously either tried to say repudiate or refuse, her comeback was that English is a 'living" language, so i guess we can all jump right in an start creating neologisms as we see fit!

It's simple, KJV made a mistake: it translated one and the same word with two different words and meanings, and thereby altered the supposedly inspired choice of the author. The plain fact is: hetoimazo does not mean ordain.

[TXnMA]

"The spiritual eye, however seeks meaning."

I hope we agree that is the purpose of this discussion.

"Since Christ chose each one of us, each one of us is the center of the Created world."

1. We begin with a serious semantic problem:
   • To me, (and to many other believer / observers) the term, "center" refers to a single, unique point.

   • To you, (if I understand you correctly) there are as many "centers of the Created world" as there are Christ-chosen believers. I have attempted to illustrate the two views in the graphic which follows...

2. You begin by defining me in terms that I deem to be most unfair, unrealistic, and inaccurate:

   "The disease you have is called scientism: a superstitious belief that the methods of natural sciences are solely capable of informing man of the truth. "

   • You depict me -- a fellow Believer -- as "diseased". Is that your version of Christian (Christ-like) charity?

   • Although I freely admit to being a retired scientist, (physical chemist) I denounce the "superstition of 'scientism' of which you accuse me.

   • Alamo-girl and betty boop have both read my (quite lengthy) testimony of the "Damascus road encounter" wherein God redirected me from (misconstrued by me) pursuit of a divinity degree -- toward a personal lifetime calling to be a physical scientist and witness for Him through study of His Creation. If they feel so led, they can testify to the accuracy / inaccuracy of your (mis)characterization of me...

3. I'm not at all sure I understand your concept of "the Created world". Do you mean this world (Earth)? Please enlighten us...

---

The large, gray circle, with its unique "THE Center" point accurately depicts my viewpoint.

I have attempted to illustrate what I understand your viewpoint to be by depcting "believer-centers" as multiple yellow circles.

Of course, if I have undertood you correctly, that would constitute many millions (?billions?) of such "centers" since the advent of our Lord -- strewn about a volume extending out to the backside of the moon, and "strung out" across space-time like a jet contrail following their convoluted path of motion through space-time... [I "gave up" on trying to illustrate THAT on a 2-D screen...] ;-)

Oh, BTW, where would God, our Father and Creator, fit in that diagram?

~~~~~~~~~~

Please pardon my mental density -- but your concept defies any definition of "the center" I have ever encountered... And, please pardon the delayed response; I do have a life beyond FR... '-)

[TXnMA]

Incoming! ‘-)

[stfassisi]

It's simple, KJV made a mistake: it translated one and the same word with two different words and meanings, and thereby altered the supposedly inspired choice of the author. The plain fact is: hetoimazo does not mean ordain.

Thus making it obvious that SOLO KJV is not the inspired word of God in many cases- that often leads to error

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Are you asking me to choose? How do recommend I go about doing that?

You pick one or the other.

Got that? And the choice will all be yours.

At the same time, that choice will all be part of the plan of God which He ordained for His creation from before the foundation of the world.

That's what Scripture teaches. Do we understand perfectly?

No. One day, but not now. And yet that incomplete understanding gives men a tremendous sense of comfort and confidence in the future because we know Romans 8:28 is true. "For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

I pity those who miss this Christian assurance God has given His children and affirmed through Christ.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." -- Acts 17:28

Now, getting back to your "demonstration." You maintained you could prove free will. And you have failed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Pray for ears to hear the meaning of those words. So far, you’re missing it.

[D-fendr]

You maintained you could prove free will.

What is this the third or fourth time? No, I asked you a question:

If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?

The point of course was for you to demonstrate it by answering the question. Which you obliged.

You pick one or the other. Got that? And the choice will all be yours.

Got it. And thanks again for the demonstration.

But, it seems, your answer to the question is "No."

thanks for your reply.