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.
LOLOL!
I think you might be surprised at how little "free will" you really have. Your life is ruled by circumstances well beyond your control. But if you accept that God is in control (totally in control), this will give you comfort. If you think your life is being determined by your free will choices and then you find yourself in a situation where you are being ruled by circumstances outside your control, this will result in panic.
The last thing I want in my life is "free will". I want God's will in my life.
I specifically said "physical cosmology" which a branch of astronomy dealing with large scale structures.
"Cosmology" is metaphysics.
I want God's will in my life.
Good to see you back in town. Thought you’d hung up your guns and retired to the ranch.
I've just been busy.
That, and my brain is full. I need to reformat it. Or maybe just partition it.
LOLOL! Welcome back!
I agree that it's hypothetical. However, we do know that God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created knowing the fall would take place (omniscience) AND God created with that knowledge, but also with the power (omnipotence) to correct it. I imagine Him doing so deliberately, rather than reactively. In other words, He had a plan....the Jesus plan. The only real question is whether thinking something is the origin of it or implementing something is the origin of it.
If it's simply thinking it, then the determinism is eternal. If it's implementing it, then the determinism related to it is from the Fall or afterwards. This is with ready admission that foreknowledge is its own brand of determinism if one is dealing with a perfect Author.
However, it would also acknowledge that original humanity was created with free will, as indicated by the choice presented in Eden. However, at no time was there anything that has happened that was a surprise to God; i.e., that was unknown to God or outside the power of God.
In so many ways, absolute foreknowledge equates with absolute determinism, so in that sense, the above is all a day late and a dollar short.
So far as Christian Unity is concerned, you will find me wondering why the Allies in Europe could have common purpose despite different "command groups" and defeat a common enemy, but that Christianity seems impotent in that regard.
Reformat....you think Paul would have used that word if he’d had it? Perhaps to illustrate a “new mind.”
LOL!
You've got to work that into your next sermon. Actually not only do you get a reformatted brain, but you get a super upgrade in capacity.
I cannot either. FWIW, that was the spellchecker, which apparently has limited vocabulary. It changed culpability to capability. I was rushing and failed to notice notice it and then, when I discovered it, it was too late for a retraction.
“Nope. All men are fallen and God would be “just” to impose punishment on every human being ever born.”
But then I wasn’t discussing inherited sin from Adam but acts performed, And my comment was in response to a statement that free will was an “illusion”.
Vee haf vays uf making zee spellchecker talk, hew know!
That's an argument from silence, but all indications are that he was unable to repent, even though he knew what he did was wrong. He was God's fall guy. Where does Judas not exercise his free will?
Read Luke 22:2-4. Judas betrays Jesus while possessed by Satan, in order for God's plan to stay on course, and on time.
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.