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.
“ahhh, so it’s the SPIRIT of the law, not the LETTER of the law. Or is it the opposite? It’s very difficult to understand which trumps what in your church.”
LOL, reading comprehension makes it easier to understand.
How fast does light travel in your universe?
I’m curious, because there are apparently vast differences between where you’re from and the current reality the rest of us inhabit.
I have news for you, friend. “Protestants”, or Evangelicals if you’d like to use a more accurate term, don’t think about the Roman Catholic church any more than they think about Mormonism or any other lost cult awash in dead rituals and manufactured theology.
And as for the “glory” of the Catholic church, I guess the rest of us sorta missed it, what with all the pedophilia, earthly power-mongering, and a Hitler Youth pontiff blocking our view.
When you’ve got the Holy Spirit guiding your life, Jesus paying for all your sins once and for all regardless of any works on your part, and the Father welcoming you as if you were his own perfect child without any earthly intercession, the RC organization just isn’t important enough to care about. Sorry.
We’re just not that into you.
= =
Now now.
Some world travelers have very tender
FEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!
Without all the gold lame, rosary wraps, magicsterical scripts, STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY, plastic marble and wood to fondle . . .
They’d freak.
One man's "beauty" is another man's apostacy. It can be dressed in silk, laden with jewels, bathed in 'holy water', surrounded with soot-covered art from a billion candles, and presented with glorious authority.
It is an illusion. Created by man for man's vanity.
It is drunk on power, bloated by tradition, enveloped by evil, and blind by vain-glory.
It is missing the one thing that could save it: the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST.
And yet, the usual suspects hang on the Catholic threads posted every single day, hour after hour, minute after minute posting rant after screed after Big Blue Font and then say it’s not important to them.
I don’t see Catholics hanging all over the Protty threads. If there is anything noticed here, it is that the Prottys are on Catholic threads in outrageous disproportion. LOL..
It’s like white on rice, Like flies on honey..
Were that is was that simple. It's not about comprehension. It's about deception.
Wonderful post, yet I cannot at all be bothered with our Church’s critics.
Like light on darkness...
Well Jesus did not come to confuse us with more religion..
Man made...
Well Jesus did not come to confuse us with more religion..
Man made...
I am Catholic and not the follower of some heretical protestant sect.
I am definitely not the follower of some snakeoil peddling salesmen of the end times persuasion.
“It’s not about comprehension. It’s about deception.”
Studies indicate that the lack of intelligence is also closely related to conspiracy theories, things that the unmature mind can wrap around easily.
That’s a very interesting study. I’ve seen studies that indicate that the lack of intelligence is closely related to being involved in false religions. Letting others do the thinking while defending their obvious lies. It’s a very interesting study on defending the indefensible.
Which is why Catholics pray for heretics to come back to the His Church. The Church he promised and let His Apostles lead.
That would be the "Holy C".
""Protestants", or Evangelicals if you'd like to use a more accurate term, don't think about the Roman Catholic church any more than they think about Mormonism or any other lost cult awash in dead rituals and manufactured theology."
You mean they spend countless hours lurking on FR searching for Mormon and Lost Cult threads and post tens of thousands of false and insulting posts about them too?
Which is why we pray for Catholics, to see the Finished Work of Christ and the Gospel of the Grace of God.
Great post! My observations exactly.
Catholics prefer the Fullness of Christ’s Words. Heretical cherrypicking doesn not count.
And if you were Israel, that would be wonderful. But you aren’t and it isn’t.
Indeed, the Catholic Church relies on the entire Revealed Word of God. That includes the Apostolic Tradition in addition to the entire written Scripture.
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.