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.

[kosta50]

The Targum Onḳelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.

The Onkelos Targum is a translation. That's what the word Targum means. In Hebrew, the original, God states that "I will be what I will become" [Ex 3:14], a future tense, and not I am who I am. Jesus says nothing even close to what God says in Ex 3:14. Ego eimi is not equivalent to Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.

[kosta50]

The Targum Onḳelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.

The Onkelos Targum is a translation. That's what the word Targum means. In Hebrew, the original, God states that "I will be what I will become" [Ex 3:14], a future tense, and not I am who I am. Jesus says nothing even close to what God says in Ex 3:14. Ego eimi is not equivalent to Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.

[kosta50]

Didn't Popeye say that?

Possibly. Not sure.

[D-fendr]

So you KNOW you're saved! Not going to be, ARE!

Ever been wrong? Could God change His mind about you? Have you ever changed your mind? Are you able to predict the future?

[Alamo-Girl]

Jewish Encyclopedia: NAMES OF GOD

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.

The Incommunicable Name was pronounced "Adonai," and where Adonai and Yhwh occur together the latter was pronounced "Elohim." After the destruction of the Second Temple there remained no trace of knowledge as to the pronunciation of the Name (see Jehovah). The commentators, however, agree as to its interpretation, that it denotes the eternal and everlasting existence of God, and that it is a composition of (meaning "a Being of the Past, the Present, and the Future"). The name Ehyeh () denotes His potency in the immediate future, and is part of Yhwh. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Ex. iii. 14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Ex. iii. 12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onḳelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.

kosta50:

The Onkelos Targum is a translation. That's what the word Targum means. In Hebrew, the original, God states that "I will be what I will become" [Ex 3:14], a future tense, and not I am who I am. Jesus says nothing even close to what God says in Ex 3:14. Ego eimi is not equivalent to Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.

The Targum Onkelos leaves the Name of God Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh untranslated and for good reason.

The Jews are extremely careful not to alter, erase or mistranslate a Name of God. This is why they often type "G_d" instead of "God" on the Internet - so that they don't accidentally erase a Name of God.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4

So it is not surprising that the Onkelos Targum leaves the Name of God, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, untranslated as a whole word instead of breaking it into parts, translating each phrase separately.

It is after all, a NAME OF GOD.

Breaking up the Name of God into individual phrases it looks like this:

Ehyeh - first-person singular imperfect form of hayah, “to be” which is usually translated "I will be."

Asher - could mean that, who, which, etc. depending on context.

Ehyeh - first-person singular imperfect form of hayah, “to be” which is usually translated "I will be."

And thus those who do NOT look at Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh as a Name of God but rather as a sentence translate it to "I will be because I will be."

If Exodus 3:12 were translated to English by that rule, it would look like this:

And God said unto Moses, I will be because I will be: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I will be hath sent me unto you.

Those who do look at Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh as an actual Name of God either do not translate it as a sentence but as a whole or else they do not translate at all, as in the Targum Onkelos.

As a Proper NAME OF GOD it correctly translates and reduces to "I AM" in English:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14 KJV

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " - NIV

God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' - New Jerusalem Bible

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. - Douay-Rheims

God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'" - Complete Jewish Bible

And that translation is confirmed by God throughout Scripture, e.g.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. – Revelation 1:8

Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10

As an example, if I said to you my name is "Alamo-Girl" and you sent a letter addressed to "cottonwood female child" I would not answer, because that is not my name but an analysis of my name. But if you sent the letter addressed to "Alamo-Girl" or "Alamo Niña" then I would answer you.

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

[kosta50]

That issue is not as simple and straightforward as you try to portray it. Rather, exhaustive readings show that lots of 'harmonization' took place over the centuries in Christian as well as Jewish interpretations. You quote a minuscule segment form the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is itself a way of skewing the issue, never mind the ocean of other sources that exist on this subject.

Likewise, John 8:58 is not without its own problems and variants. Some manuscripts show the verse in the past tense (I was) rather than in present imperfect (I am being). To use only one of myriad examples, Jason BeDuhn and Robert M. Bowman (2004-2005) debated this at length, and BeDuhn writes the following (emphasis added; also text in [] is my interpolation):

"Rob and I agree that the connection of John 8:58 to Exodus 3"14 is a dead end. Rob notes correctly that the early church fathers did not see this connection, for the simple reason that their Bibles did not have the close match of phrasing found in most modern English Bibles. I have said myself on numerous occasions what Rob says in his book: 'Jesus certainly does not say, in so many words, "I am 'I AM,'" nor does he quote Exodus 3:14 in its entirety and apply to itself. The words ego eimi [εγω ημι] in John 8:58 do not function as the title of Christ [anointed] (124)."—John 8:58: The BeDuhn—Bowman Debate

Thus, we have translational and contextual issues here, which have been "harmonized" over the centuries. The fact that Onkelos Targums retain the Ehyeh-Asher-Ehye in the (Hebrew) original is irrelevant, as its pronunciation and substitution in reading varied over time and language (Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.), and the perceived meaning changed from one rabbi to another. Thus we have issues not only with the Ehyeh-Asher-Ehye but with John 8:58 and the much controversial ego eimi phrase.

In fact, ego eimi (which is a simply "I am") appears all over the New Testament and is never confused with the name of God. But in the Septuagint version of the Exodus 3:14 God is quoted as saying "ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν" (ego eimi ho on), that is I am the Being/Existence. It is the ho on that is missing in John 8:58, which is why there is reason to think something is not kosher with this verse. The ho on (Ο ΩΝ) is the equivalent of the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) which is why it appears on most icons of Jesus in his halo of later years.

But, as noted, the early church fathers did not make a connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. The ho on was missing in the former. So, no matter how you turn it around, what Jesus says in John 8:58 doe snot correspond to Hebrew Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, not to the Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14.

[kosta50]

doe snot=does not

[xzins]

54Jesus answered, `If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God; 55and ye have not known Him, and I have known Him, and if I say that I have not known Him, I shall be like you -- speaking falsely; but I have known Him, and His word I keep; 56Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.' 57The Jews, therefore, said unto him, `Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?' 58Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' 59they took up, therefore, stones that they may cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Alamo-girl's interpretation is simply backed up by the context. The leaders' reaction to Jesus' words, and the words themselves, suggest Jesus intentionally provoked them.

And then we have the man born blind story of chapter 9:

35Jesus heard that they cast him forth without, and having found him, he said to him, `Dost thou believe in the Son of God?' 36he answered and said, `Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?' 37And Jesus said to him, `Thou hast both seen him, and he who is speaking with thee is he;' 38and he said, `I believe, sir,' and bowed before him.

Jesus received WORSHIP from a man who had believed Jesus' own words about HIS being the Son of God.

"I AM" indeed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your concerns and insights, dear kosta50!

But please remember that you and I come from polar opposite epistemological positions (how we know what we know and how certain we are that we know it.)

The revelations of God - as in the Torah and indeed all of Scripture - are certain to me. A thing is true because God said it.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

This is why God cannot lie. When He says a thing, it is. Time is irrelevant. No thing and no one can thwart the will of God.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; - Titus 1:2

Again, time is part of the creation, not a property of, or restriction on, the Creator of it.

In the beginning - Genesis 1, John 1 The opinions of experts, historical figures and even my brothers and sisters in Christ are moot by comparison to the words of God.

And before someone suggests that the Scriptures are merely the words of historical figures, I testify here and now that the words of God are alive, they are spirit and life. The words of men are not and thus we know the difference.

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

The natural man cannot discern the difference.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:14

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

That anyone would think of God as time-bound is amusing to me and that view expressed as a restriction on a Name of God, all the more so.

Likewise, that the early Church fathers did not discern the connection between these passages is irrelevant to me.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. – Revelation 1:8

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6

Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10

And these as well:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, - Genesis 2:4

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

Man is not the measure of God.

God's Name is Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh which is to say in my native language, His proper Name is I AM.

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. – Psalms 91:4

Hallowed be thy name...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your insights, dear brother in Christ, and especially for those beautiful Scriptures putting it all in context!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One source was offered here. About one woman.

Roman Catholic apologists have a really difficult time with the fact that these United States were patterned after the Presbyterian form of government of Calvin's Geneva.

And rather than deal with the present corruption in their own church, which is the topic of this thread, they prefer to try to deflect the discussion onto anything but the obvious sins of the RCC priestcraft and the magisterium's complicity in those sins.

If you're waiting for a Protestant to defend any crime, albeit the Salem witch trials or any misdeeds of a Protestant pastor, you'll have a long wait.

Which, of course, is the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Protestants denounce sin, knowing all men are fallen. Roman Catholics hide sin because they deny the extent of the Fall and thus presume men can save themselves by their own good works. This massive error then leads them to wrongly believe some men are more than men; they are "another Christ."

As Orwell noted, "Some pigs are more equal than others."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

J.A. Doyle

Let's see who this Doyle fellow was. He was an unmarried Englishman who lived 150 years ago who wrote about American history. Wonder if his crusty English perspective was perhaps a little "skewed" against those rebellious Colonies?

Also, the three Quakers were charged with heresy. For a little perspective, let's see what early Quakers really believed...

BELIEFS OF THE QUAKERS

"Some, but not all Quakers, view the doctrine of Jesus' and the virgin birth as nonessential and not accepted as fact...

Acceptance of any document as valid for doctrine, i.e. Tao Te Ching, Koran, etc. (Society of Friends)..."

Sounds like heresy to me.

But I do appreciate these many opportunities to learn the truth, to put history into perspective, to understand what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. Roman Catholic errors provide a wealth of riches to learn by default.

[MarkBsnr]

Roman Catholic apologists have a really difficult time with the fact that these United States were patterned after the Presbyterian form of government of Calvin's Geneva.

Negative. We have shown that the Calvinist colonies were originally patterned after Calvin's Geneva and that their murderous zeal had to be tempered with the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a matter of fact, Calvin's Geneva and the Calvinist colonies especially the Puritan colonies were brutal theocracies. You have kept on talking about religious freedom, but the fact is that most of the original colonies had a decreed religion. I don't know what parallel universe would ever claim otherwise. You have rejected an official account from the state government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, so I suppose that there is very little that will make an impression on you.

[MarkBsnr]

So it is okay to have religious tolerance only for those who believe exactly as the Reformed do and make it into law? Nice. You are consistent, anyway.

We will have to file it away under Calvinist meanings of English words and phrases: religious freedom in the Reformed lexicon means that one must be a 5-point TULIP believer and it is good and holy to persecute to the death anybody who doesn’t believe it. Got it. Thanks.

[kosta50]

Alamo-girl's interpretation is simply backed up by the context. The leaders' reaction to Jesus' words, and the words themselves, suggest Jesus intentionally provoked them

In context, dear xzins, the Pharisees were angry with Jesus becuase in their eyes he was saying that he knew Moses, not that he is equivalent to God. That is clear from John 8:57

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

In other words they were angry with him for lying. Simple as that. Nowheere in the Greek text does Jesus say he is God.

The way Jesus expresses himself (ego eimi) in John 8:58 is not equivalent either to ehyer (I shall become) in the Masoretic Hebrew, or to to the LXX Greek ο ων [ho on] (the existence), in Exodus 3:14, because it's missing the essential ho on.

In other words, simple ego eimi without the ho on is just "I am" and not the sacred name of God in Greek. Ego eimi is found all over the NT (over 1,600 times) without it ever being confsued with the sacred name of God, which is ο ων and which is not mentioned in John 8:58.

And then we have the man born blind story of chapter 9...Jesus received WORSHIP from a man who had believed Jesus' own words about HIS being the Son of God.

Naurally. The Gospel of John was written at the very end of the first century precisely for that purpose. In the historical context the timing of John's Gospel was no coincidence, but a dire necessity: Christianity needed to establish divine authority for itself, independent of Judaism. Christians were shortly before that thrown out of the synagogues, declared heretics and their books publicly rejected by official rabbinic Judaism.

Christianity could no longer derive its authority from Judaism unless it established that Jesus was not just the anointed (Jewish) human messiah but rather the God of Israel himself! John's entire Gospel is a project for accomplishing that goal. So, such tales as you mention in John 9 are perfectly expected in that work.

That doesn't show, however, that (grammatically or otherwise) the word "ego eimi" (I am) is equivalent to "ego eimi ho on."

[xzins]

you are denying the obvious intent of all the stories preceding and following the text in question. it is a basic principle of hermeneutics. Nothing I can do about that except take it into account when reading your positions.

[count-your-change]

Having spent some time with this “ego eimi” question, I have to say kosta has it right. There simply is no way to make Jesus answer at John 8:58 a quote or reference to Ex. 3:14. To try to do is not only bad translation, it's bad grammar.
If it were not then the formerly blind man of John 9:9 would be quoting Ex. also as he plainly identifies himself saying “ego eimi”.

[xzins]

who did Jesus say was “before” Abraham?

[count-your-change]

Is this a trick question? Himself, of course.

[xzins]

case closed, really, by the context