Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict
catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 2,821-2,822 next last
To: Alamo-Girl

EXCELLENT.

WELL PUT.

THX THX.

PRAISE GOD.

PRAYERS AND HUGS FOR YOUR NIECE ETC.


1,041 posted on 07/16/2010 8:47:53 AM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
LOLOL! I'll be sure to post a warning next time.

"Hello, this is Alamo-girl your pilot speaking. We're asking you all to return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts. We'll be flying through some really rough sarcasm up ahead. Please remain seated until the fasten seatbelts sign goes off."

1,042 posted on 07/16/2010 8:48:04 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you for your prayers for my niece (we're awaiting news on whether the balloon has been removed) and thank you for your encouragements!
1,043 posted on 07/16/2010 8:55:40 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

To: xzins

LOLOL!


1,044 posted on 07/16/2010 8:56:22 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

In vs. 6 Luke says Judas sought out opportunites to betray Jesus and John says Satan entered Judas also just before he left at the end of the Passover meal

Judas sought the opportunities to betray him after Satan had moved in him. The chronology is clear in Luke's account. John's account doesn't change anything chronologically. Judas cooperated with the Sanhedrin after he was possessed or because he was the devil all along.

In fact at Capernaum Jesus calls him a devil or slanderer.(John 6:70)

It could be a figure of speech as when Jesus calls Peter "Satan" as well (Mat 16:23, Mark 8:33). Besides, if he knew he was the devil then how could John say  Satan entered Judas after the Passover meal? Hoe can the devil enter himself?!?

So Satan was not entering a clean vessel here.

No human being is a clean vessel. Either way, the point is that God seems to make use of the evil to fulfill his plan. It's just that John makes sure no one feels that Judas was a victim whose regret could have been forgiven. God will forgive fallen men but not fallen angels.

A “fall guy”??? He realized his actions were wrong, meaning he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Yes to both. He served a specific role in the foreordained set of events which had to happen, and his actions could not have been any other way. There was no other choice; there was no free will.

He knew what he was doing. Unable to repent?

Well, if he was the devil as John implies, or devil-possessed, then he could not. 

Matthew 27:3 saya he did repent. Possessed? or Influenced or guided?

Your Bible trnalsation is misleading you. The word used is metamelomai (μεταμελομαι) rather than metanoeo (μετανοεω). This distinction is very clear to any Eastern Orthodox believer, but not in the western tradition.  

The former represents and emotional change (regret, remorse). The latter a change of choice (as in metanoia, literally change of mind) for the rest of your life (repentance).

NAB correctly translates this verse "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders."

So, yes, Judas was unable to repent, because if he did God would have forgiven him. Just being sorry doesn't cut it. In fact, John's account makes no sense in this regard since Judas, if he were the devil as John alleges, would have not even regretted, let alone repented! 

1,045 posted on 07/16/2010 9:09:43 AM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1025 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; betty boop; TXnMA; D-fendr; annalex; count-your-change

LOLOL indeed! I didn't say theology, I said religion. There is essential difference. You can look it up since you seem to conflate the two.

1,046 posted on 07/16/2010 9:16:59 AM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1033 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl
How about a simple,

"Incoming!!"

...? ;-)
1,047 posted on 07/16/2010 9:26:46 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Ahhhhhhhhh . . .

The 3 most critical medical concerns currently or looming close at hand are??


1,048 posted on 07/16/2010 9:41:08 AM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; betty boop; TXnMA; D-fendr; annalex; count-your-change
LOLOL indeed! I didn't say theology, I said religion. There is essential difference. You can look it up since you seem to conflate the two.

Your original statement:

Either one [physical cosmology v cosmology] is as much religion as science.

It does not help your case at all to count the secularists who study religion. My statement with the secularists added:

The next time the National Academy of Science holds a Colloquium on Physical Cosmology, I'll be sure to count the theologians and the “historians, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers of religion” in attendance.

The participants in the colloquium on physical cosmology are astronomers and physicists. Science writers attend. The inter-disciplinary aspects involved in exploring astronomical observations (e.g. COBE) are nuclear physics, plasma physics, particle physics, condensed matter physics, atomic physics, astrophysics, gravitational physics.

The history, sociology, psychology or philosophy of religion is not on the "physical cosmology" table.

1,049 posted on 07/16/2010 10:02:24 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

LOLOL!


1,050 posted on 07/16/2010 10:02:57 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: Quix
They have to get the balloon out so that her heart is pumping on its own, they have to remove the tubes so that she is breathing on her own - and they have to get her strong enough to endure radiation and chemotherapy for her breast cancer.

Thank you for asking, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your prayers!

1,051 posted on 07/16/2010 10:05:14 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1048 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Alamo-Girl; blue-duncan; xzins; HarleyD
What God "foreknows" is what a man will do.

Men not purchased with the blood of Christ will always sin and enjoy their sins.

Men purchased with the blood of Christ will hate their sins and try to "sin no more," according to the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit within them, given as a free gift from God of pure, unearned mercy.

If God existed only temporally, He could predestine anoyone.

Your theories on time are unintelligible to anyone with a Biblical perspective. God exists inside and outside of time. He did, however, create time and time is the universe into which He put us. This universe had a temporal beginning. It will have a temporal ending. And between those two points is the will of God. Period. Men who think they act independently of the Creator are simply fooling themselves into thinking they are God's equal with the ability to surprise God or thwart God or deny God.

That's not God. That's Zeus.

1,052 posted on 07/16/2010 10:08:19 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1027 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

SURE.

I realize that praying in tongues is a perfect way to pray. Still, even then, I prefer to have some focus for the specifics.

THANKS MUCH for the update and please keep me posted.


1,053 posted on 07/16/2010 10:16:02 AM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Joya

Joya ping.


1,054 posted on 07/16/2010 10:17:16 AM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
metanoia, literally change of mind

Could meta also mean "beyond"?

1,055 posted on 07/16/2010 10:37:13 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [literally, muwth muwth or “death death”]. – Genesis 2:17"
I believe Jesus gave us clues that this death-death is the death in/of the spirit, as in created spirit void of LIFE in it. When Jesus told his followers to 'let the dead go bury the dead', I believe He gave us a powerful clue that there are at least two forms of the state of dead, and that one refers to the spirit without God-Life therein.

I also believe that Jesus shows up in the Old Testament, in several places. But that is grist for another mill ...

1,056 posted on 07/16/2010 10:49:21 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; betty boop; TXnMA; D-fendr; annalex; count-your-change
You just don't get it, do you? Religion and theology are two different things. I was talking about cosmology (in general) being part science and part religion.

You then decided to introduce theologians and secularists studying religion, thereby obfuscating the issue, which has nothing to do with what I said about cosmology.

The reason cosmology (no matter which) is part science and part religion is because it deals with existential issues that remain a mystery.

The religion part are the axiomatic "self-evident truths," and the science part is the skepticism that drives the research.

Theology is actually a science of God that necessarily deals with doubt. Religion is an organized set of a priori beliefs in a divine entity and is free of doubt.

That's why some cosmologists don't find it a contradiction to be believers (for example Einstein). The existential mystery itself leads us to religious concepts, thus the very subject of cosmology has religious overtones while searching for physical evidence for their verification.

This is nothing new. The Old World Order Church did the same thing. It combined science (Ptolemaic system), philosophy (Aristotle) and theology (based on the Bible) to establish that man is God's central creation and that therefore the earth must be at the very center of the created world.

Thus, the Old World Order had an unshakable belief, based on three independent schools of knowledge (how can they all be wrong!?) that the this is indeed so, and it took extraordinary new discoveries to show that the Old World Order was indeed wrong.

Nothing has changed in that regard. It will take extraoridnary new evidence to change the current cosmological beliefs, to which so many hang on religiously, even though cracks are apparent of all.

1,057 posted on 07/16/2010 10:52:18 AM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
The chronology of when Satan enters Judas was not in question.
The incident at Capernaum indicates Judas had become a bad character long before that though and Jesus calling him a slanderer or devil (no caps) shows Jesus saw that in him.
That would a devil, not THE Devil.

“Well, if he was the devil as John implies, or devil-possessed, then he could not.”

John does imply Judas was the devil.

I can say he could not do this or that but that's a conclusion neither stated nor indicated in the account.
and yes, I am aware of the difference in the two Greek words, repent being being used of both and by both of us.

Judas felt reget, metameletheis, “repent”, used also in Matt.21:29 for regret, repent, and a change of action by the son of the farmer. I'm not misled at all.

“So, yes, Judas was unable to repent, because if he did God would have forgiven him. Just being sorry doesn't cut it. In fact, John's account makes no sense in this regard since Judas, if he were the devil as John alleges, would have not even regretted, let alone repented!”

Some of us are not able to read the mind of God so perfectly that we can say what He would do under all circumstances and events. Or know what others are capable of doing in some different circumstance than what happened.

John’s account says Jesus called Judas a slanderer or devil in the broad or general sense, a devil, a slanderer, not in the specific, THE Devil or THE Slanderer. It's an important distinction.

“No human being is a clean vessel.”

That's what I call nit picking. and it deserves no further.

” It's just that John makes sure no one feels that Judas was a victim whose regret could have been forgiven.”

Well, we, who are MERE MORTALS, find reading John's motives, John's unstated motives, from a distance of 2000 years more difficult than you might, but as I say, we're mere mortals.

1,058 posted on 07/16/2010 11:22:02 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; betty boop; TXnMA; D-fendr; annalex; count-your-change; GOPJ; ...
To the contrary, dear kosta50, I do get it and I called you to account right away.

In response to my post 882, you said (at 941, emphasis mine)

Cosmology is as much science as it is religion. None of the fancy physics you mention is combined into anything more than a theory, two incompatible theories to be more precise, and a few more emerging from the same pot.

To which I replied at 1004:

Strawman.

I specifically said "physical cosmology" which a branch of astronomy dealing with large scale structures.

"Cosmology" is metaphysics.

My post 882 refers to the science of large scale structures, physical cosmology, a branch of astronomy hinged on math and physics. Without regard to the individual prevailing theories of physical cosmology, my post focuses on the math and physics of the beginning of space and time. Indeed, that is the focus all the way to the end where I give my testimony which I most always do on a substantive post.

I will not stand for my math and physics being painted as metaphysics, i.e. made into a strawman.

If you want to discuss the math and physics, fine.

If you want to discuss alternative theories of physical cosmologies (inflationary theory/big bang, cyclic, imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, hesitating, steady state, etc.) then fine.

If you want to discuss metaphysics, cosmology, theology or religious studies - then fine.

If you want to discuss the epistemic cut between theology and the study of religion, fine.

But don't misrepresent my work.

1,059 posted on 07/16/2010 11:33:45 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Could meta also mean "beyond"?

Sure, it means with, after, behind etc. The compound expression mentanoia cannot be understood as a raw product of its component words any more that the English word understanding, which—if translated literally as under+standing would translate into Greek as hypo+stasis, and into Latin as sub+stantia!

Such literal translations almost always, if nto always, lead into theological errors, as is the case with the translation of the Greek hypostasis (which represent a form or sui-generis reality or existence), first being translated into Latin as as persona (a mask!) and from there into English as person, although literlly i translates into substantia.

Of course Latin substantia (substance, matter) is completely unrelated to the Greek hypostasis, but it is a literal translation of it! It actually corresponds to the Greek ousia (essence or nature), as in homoousios (not homoiousios!) when the Creed speaks of the Father and the Son being of the same substance.

So now you have all western Christians speaking of three "Persons" of the Godhead (which itself is a mistranslation of the Greek theotes).

An even better exmaple, and one of my favoirtes, is in Irenaeus' Latin translation (from the 4th centuy AD) in which he referrs to Mary (the Mother of God) as the advocata (Latin for intercessor, adviocate, lawyer). But when this word is translated into Greek, in which IOrenaeus originally wrote (the roiginal is lost) it read as Paraclete (Holy Ghost)! I doubt that Irenaeus thought of, or confused Blessed Mary with the Holy Ghost! :)

Going back to the compund words, while some compound words can be translated simply by adding the meaning of the component words (such as fore+see), most of the time you can't. Thus, mentanoia (to repent), and metamelomai (to regret, to be sorry, literally after+care, to mind as an afterthought) are not identical.

Botom line is this: many Greek words have very specific meaning in terms of an unwritten finesse rather than an etymological or lexical value. Thus, bapto and baptizo come from the same root meaning to submerge, or to dunk, but baptizo came to mean repeated dunking resulting in permanent change (as in pickling a cucumber). Naturally the Church chose baptizo to represent christening or baptism rather than bapto!

1,060 posted on 07/16/2010 3:59:33 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1055 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 2,821-2,822 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson