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.
And it is amplified in Revelation 1:8:
God's Name is I AM and Alpha and Omega and The Almighty.
Contrary to what you may think, I am a life-long conservative, a registered Republican, I love this country, I think Richard Dawkins is a pathetic crusader, and I have nothing personally against God.
From the point of view of our would-be "controllers," human beings become better fit for the "herd" if they can be lobotomized. Since this is largely impractical (at least so far), for them to remain in ignorance of the human past is the next best strategy for controlling them....
Every day it seems they chip away liberty, edging and terrifying us into ever shrinking positions in the hive.
This method is a classic military "siege" of a target. In the Revolutionary War they would construct gradually approaching parallel lines towards the object, ditches from which to fire from cover - until the target was battle worn and terrified. The British used it against Charleston; the Americans against Yorktown.
Okay, if Satan moved into Judas I would say it is more than "influence." It's an invasion, taking over, infiltrating, occupying, subjegating, etc.
If John meant literally that Judas was a devil, then Judas-the-human was taken over completely by a demon, since demons have body of their own. I would call that more like dominance than influence.
In either case it wasn't Judas-he-human, but some demon, who called the shots.
How would Judas be guilty if he had no control or wasn't free to do otherwise than what he did?
James 4:7 says "resist the devil," but none of the disciples had the Holy Spirit at the time of Judas' betrayal, so that was not possible, was it?
If Judas did not act exactly as God wanted, at the given hour, if it was left up to his "free will" and how he "felt about it," then the whole thing would have been uncertain. Things simply had to play out exactly as they played out, like a scripted movie, where actors act their part, or else the movie ends up nowhere.
Otherwise it's all by chance.
Then what does “granted”, “give” repentance mean in the three scriptures in which it is used? That He made it possible, provided opportunity.
Pretty much. But if he doesn't grant you the opportunity then you can't repent. The baptized not only are given the "opportunity," but their will has been changed to want to please God, so that they will want to repent. Again, their choice is not a sui-generis, indigenous, desire to repent, but seems rather strongly "influenced," to put it mildly.
Else, where does it say that God granted the opportunity to everyone?
Rom 2:4 in fact says God was trying to “lead” people to repentance.
Yes, God leads his slaves (Greek: douloi, or obligate servants), the slaves for righteousness. Where is their "freedom" to resist. Those who do were never of his flock to begin with, or so the Bible says, so citing examples of apostates doesn't prove free will.
Just curious, do you remember an instance where you did not either agree or disagree with anyone about anything?
Thank you
So very true, dear sister in Christ! In so doing, the description of the object increasingly stands in lieu of the reality (object) it describes. Something very similar is going on with sense perception itself. Can we really say to what extent a sense perception is anything more than a registration of the appearance of a thing in a form suitable for mental processing, which can tell us nothing about what the thing really is, as it is in itself?
When God says a Word, He's not "making a description." He is implementing reality itself. Although human beings cannot do this, it seems many post-modernist thinkers believe they can "change the reality" by changing the words with which it is described. For a human to do this must involve belief in a magical act of transformation, in a "magic word," die Zauberworte — the speaking of which involves what Heimito von Doderer has called "the refusal to apperceive reality ... [which is] the pathological core in the structure of consciousness that enables the dreamer to ignore rational argument against his construction." [Eric Voegelin, "Wisdom and the Magic of the Extreme," Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 323]
But magic is never real: It does not deal with reality at all, but only with how human beings are "set-up" to perceive its false facsimile....
Truly, "no word of men can describe God the Creator," since time, space, form, matter, energy are descriptive categories of men which have no relevance to the Creator Himself, Who is the Ayn Sof, the "no thing" which made all these things. He cannot be "measured" in terms of such things.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your illuminating essay/post!
To which kosta replied: Just curious, do you remember an instance where you did not either agree or disagree with anyone about anything?
Dear kosta, the "or at least not disagree" was a courtesy to you. It's an acknowledgement of the constant hedging you use to avoid being pinned down in an argument.
Personally, I don't see much danger in simply being straightforward. But as to your question, there are times when I cannot either agree or disagree with a proposition for the simple reason that I do not know enough about the matter to take a position.
If all that is true, then why are you standing with the post-modernists?
Forgive me for saying so, but it looks like you have a lot more in common, intellectually speaking, with Captain Zero than with the Founders/Framers. More of the ideological commitments of the French Revolution than the American one.
Do you have anything impersonally against God?
The holy spirit was operative. Mary became pregnant, Elizabeth was “filled with holy spirit, and the disciples when sent out, would have God's spirit speaking in them. (Luke chapter 1 and Matt. 10:20)
God's spirit was able to do whatever He wished.
“If Judas did not act exactly as God wanted, at the given hour, if it was left up to his “free will” and how he “felt about it,” then the whole thing would have been uncertain. Things simply had to play out exactly as they played out, like a scripted movie, where actors act their part, or else the movie ends up nowhere.”
Nope, God can accomplish His will no matter who does what.
When the Israelites made the golden calf God said He would wipe all of them out and makes a nation from Moses. God thereby would keep His promise to Abraham even if He did through Moses.
What God says will take place, will. (Isa. 55:11)
Repentance first, then baptism. (Acts 2:38)
and God is telling everyone everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)
“Yes, God leads his slaves (Greek: douloi, or obligate servants), the slaves for righteousness. Where is their “freedom” to resist. Those who do were never of his flock to begin with, or so the Bible says, so citing examples of apostates doesn't prove free will.”
Romans 2:4 was directed to those (”O man, whoever you are”) who were going receive an adverse judgment for their actions unless they repented and Paul said God was leading them by being long-suffering and kind.
As Joshua said to the nation of Israel, God's covenant people, ‘choose for yourselves whom you will serve’ but he was going to serve God. (Josh. 24:15)
Lots of free will there. If they couldn't choose, didn't have the ability to exercise free will, then what was Joshua asking of them?
FReepMail for you — on the subject of “centrism”...
It seems to me the only defense against this assault, which is not only on mankind, but on God Himself, is to stand on the Rock of God: God's Truth is the basis of human reason, and also the only basis of human liberation, in this world and the next: "And the Truth shall set you free." FWIW.
God's Name is: I AM.
But God did not come to rescue the fly. He came to rescue you.
Christ did His work for everyone. Now is our turn. Many are called, few are chosen.
All are called. Few accept.
The crazed use of "Yes, we can." in the last election comes to mind. It was and is meaningless. It's just a magic word but it had real consequences.
And back under Clinton the "sex, sex, sex" was obviously and successfully used to change the focus from perjury/obstruction of justice to something naughty but legal.
For some time now, the left wingers and their helpers in media/entertainment and education have been controlling the debate by controlling the language.
In newsrooms they dare not use the term "unborn child" - they must say "fetus." And under the Obama administration, we don't hear the term "terrorist" very often. And in education, I hear they avoid the terms "mommy" and "daddy" altogether.
Worse, the Name of God is treated like a curse word not to spoken in public (media/education) except as a curse word (entertainment.)
Even so, it's not "about" me, it's "about" Jesus.
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
Word, sound, thought and what they describe are all the same.
What keeps all our words from being magic is the fact and nature of our humanity.
What made the words of Y’Shua the Christ so magically powerful (miraculous) is the fact and nature of His Divinity.
Prayer works, when we “put off” our humanity and “assume” the power of His Divinity. It’s the essence of why we pray “in His Holy Name.”
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.