That would be the "Holy C".
Point goes unreservedly to you.
That was just *funny*, I don't care who you are...
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
That's wonderful news!
So you KNOW you're saved! Not going to be, ARE!
Don't start your victory lap too soon. Your salvation is not assured until the moment of your death. You still have plenty of opportunities to blow it through, among other things, bearing false witness against your Catholic brothers and sisters, and an overall lack of beatitude in you "deeds".
It wasn't a victory lap, trust me. And your post shows it clearly. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a person cannot bear false witness against someone who is bearing false witness. Your witness of salvation not being assured until the moment of your death is a great example.
And you can "love" all you want. your love gets you nowhere, except praise in the eyes of men. It's Christ's love FOR YOU and your accepting what He did FOR YOU, and realizing there is nothing you can add to HIS FINISHED WORK that gives you the only opportunity you have in your life to be saved. It either saves you or condemns you. I know that doesn't sound very "beatitude" driven, but sometimes the truth hurts. Before it saves.
You are free to follow the traditions of Geneva. I will continue to follow the Good News.
That would be the "Holy C".
Point goes unreservedly to you.
That was just *funny*, I don't care who you are...
It is simply a division of labor in a large organization, common to any one such.
The atmosphere of sexual depravity rampant in late 20c following the legitimization of contraception and combined with the notion that a pastor can style his ministry and his personal theology in any way his heart or, perhaps, some other organ dictates -- is directly atributable to the Protestant heresies, yes.
I am simply pointing out that a bishop, once installed, receives a very wide lattitude in how he administers his diocese. In the case of several latently homosexual bishops it proved unfortunate.
Note please, that the strict control from Rome that you correctly say was lacking during John Paul II pontificate is the exact opposite of Protestant ecclesiology, which produced the same rate of abuse but rarely faces the consequences of it.
but rarely faces the consequences of it.
I have observed that to be thoroughly inaccurate.
Whatever the defects of Protestantism the original Reformational view, one of the great ideals of the United States, is that of personal responsibility. A concept apparently foreign to Romanists.
Of course by “Romanists”, one refers to those who can read called Catholics.
Another great American concept is that of justice. This refers to those being accused actually being found guilty, prior to them taking responsibility and facing consequences.
Some never tire of putting on their elitist airs. Of course our country is surrounded by leftists who prance about demanding the folk subject themselves to their superiority.
Then there are those who have never quite gotten over the demise of the Holy Roman Empire. They too would have the folk subject themselves to their better despotism.
Then there is the story of America where the folk free from despotism are able to use their liberty to produce a society of the folk, by the folk, and for the folk.
Elitists just can’t stand that notion.
A rare deflection.
Must have hit a nerve. Goose and gander and all of that.
Do you suppose the many "Romanists" who have sacrificed their (human) existence, (Jeanne d'Arc, the apostles Paul and Peter, for examples), were not exercising personal responsibility?
I'll refer you to a book, you may or may not read it, yet if you do then you would better understand the Roman-Catholic Church as well as the Church's, thus God's, position on other denominations.
Catholic Matters by Richard John Neuhaus
You might be surprised at many of the insightful revelations put forth from the erstwhile Lutheran.
How can something be a deflection off of that which is vacuous?
I’m well aware of the Romanists ubiquitous ownership claims.
I’ll give you Jeanne.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I just wish there were more Lord Acton followers.
Care to elaborate?
Of course. It was a Catholic ideal before there was a United States. Catholicism is all about free will, good works, and doing penance for bad ones, for starters. You don't rattle off a profession of faith and consider yourself "saved".
lol. Darn tootin! You gotta work for it.
Never mind that contradicts the word of God.
That if thou shalt confess thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." -- Romans 10:8-9"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Was Paul preaching another Gospel? Was Paul wrong? Because he didn't qualify that statement. Nor did Christ.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
God willing, Roman Catholics will read the Bible and realize that a needlessly complicated, arrogantly corrupt bureaucracy is leading them away from Christ.
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.