Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by 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.
Good observation. Just another example that "good taste" or "harmony" is also man-made, and that culture (man-made) and the effect of habit tend to enforce these definitions as "true".
The concept and what constitutes deity (God) also changes from culture to culture and from era to era. Only totalitarian minds insist on officially "true" colors, music, taste, and God, because they are protecting their own man-made definition of truth.
Thus, in the former Soviet Union, along with prescribed politically correct thinking, only classical art was considered "true." Modern art was forbidden.
In America it used to be anathema to for women to wear white stockings after a certain time of the year (and it still might be), and in Japan for the longest time only those of ethnic Japanese ancestry could become sumo wrestlers because only the Japanese ethnicity conferred the "dignity" necessary for that calling!
The opposite of that are people who are no less purists by who insist that traffic rules are too restricitrve and that driving on both sides of the street as you will is true freedom, and damn the consequences!
And you have Jews who say Torah was written by God before the world existed, who say that God chose the Jews to convince the world that Yahweh is the only God, and then you have Christians who claim the Jews were wrong and they are right and their triune God is true, and he will convert the world and even most of the Jews eventually and show them their "error," and then you have the Muslims who also want to convert the unbelievers or they will cut off their heads.
It seems to me that man created his God, in his image and character, just the way he would like to be. Is an idealized projection of man that is used to justify what men do.
Wrong. Poetry is elected.
Does the phrase "it doesn't do it justice" mean anything to you?
Hence the judicious choice of the word "required".
Nice try, though.
Get lost, toll! I never, never said I chose atheism.
Poetry is not required in this world. It’s elected. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you.
LOL! "Toll"?
When dyslexics attack!
"Get thee behind me, Santa."
Never "said" or never "admitted" ...?
So you're a coward as well as an atheist, then?
Cheers!
Spoken like a man who has never tasted love, either human or divine.
Cheers!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
He had just *attempted* to call me a troll.
I thought an immediate tag-back w.r.t. that one post was acceptable: especially as I included the very text I was replying to.
Nonetheless, acknowledged, and I will comply.
Cheers!
YOU:Get lost, toll! I never, never said I chose atheism.
Well, I'll ask you now.
1) Are you an atheist?
2) Do you acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior of the World, who was put to death for our transgressions and raised for our justification?
3) ...and you never did answer the question about your take on YOUR free will, regarding belief or unbelief.
Cheers!
True but all our organs are continually being replaced with new cells, and when injured, they heal.
There is no reason whatsoever for a cell to die other than an enzyme
I remember hearing a series of lectures on longevity by medical reasearchers and biochemist working on the problem. One of them's statement stayed with me. She said the fundamental problem they face is that on the cellular level, the processes of aging is the same as the processes of living.Kind of like natural curing addiction with addiction.
There are good, bad, good/bad and neutral mutations. Of course, you would point out that these qualifiers are man-made or at least from man's perspective. In the long run, we don't know.
Procreation problems could have been naturally adjusted by adjusting reproductive periods and estrus duration, sharply reducing offspring numbers.
That occurs, or similar adjustments, already. Predators and resource depletion also contribute. This means cataclysm for the species involved, with man it would be approaching Armageddon.That doesn't strike me as an intelligent design but a reactive design.
I think you likely don't see "design" in the picture, but life eating life to live is IMHO more than reactive. It's the way the whole system works, everything is part of many cycles, interdependent. Not only food, but oxygen, nitrogen, water, minerals, etc. etc.
At some point radiation and other factors damage our cells leading to breakdown.
Radiation also causes mutations - ones that help us survive as well.
So, all this seems to be adaptive.
I don't think you mean adaptive here, unless you're saying the underlying process of creation is adaptive and designing.
When longevity becomes an essential survival tool the body will turn on telomerase and prolong cell-life.
Just a personal opinion, I doubt this factor will affect unless/until reproduction occurs in old age.
For a changing world
That's the key, we live in a world of constant change, nothing stays the same. You can't build a once-and-for-all system. It must incorporate change. It seems to be teleological. From matter to one cell life, to multi-cell, to intelligence, to consciousness, to... ?
Thanks again for your reply.
Actually I thought it was evidence for the the opposite. Why did you come to your conclusion?
Poetry is something man-made. Man created it, man chooses is. It is not required. It is elected. End of dicussion.
No.
Do you acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior of the World, who was put to death for our transgressions and raised for our justification?
No.
and you never did answer the question about your take on YOUR free will, regarding belief or unbelief
It's called reason.
Which is why great music and poetry is called "inspired" ("God-breathed")...
Nice try, though.
You might want to revisit "Men without Chests" in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
Or even Pascal's "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
Cheers!
It's called reason.
Define the terms and demonstrate their relevance: speaking on code words from your own subculture, without further explanation, does not enhance your reputation, nor does it persuade others, outside of your circle.
Superciliousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain your point.
And recall my earlier quote from Pascal.
Cheers!
The proofs and models of mathematics are elegant. The same could be said of the most profound science theories.
Indeed, without that elegance we'd be hard pressed to understand the physical Creation at all.
More importantly, the Names of God are elegant:
“Elegant” is a great word. Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.