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.
The words of God are alive and powerful.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:1-9
I’ve been gone for a few days, but I expected to see the question you were so anxious to post regarding your proof that free will exists.
It must have been according to God's VERY mysterious plan, from our POV, naturally. :)
lol.
Isaiah called God by the name of either Holy or Randy. (They were very close.)
And what do you use to avoid being pinned down in an arugment? My comment was intended as a reminder to you that we all agree or disagree with someone, and sometimes do neither.
Just because I also can't remember a time when I saw you agree (or at least disagree) with me doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's a pretty much established fact that human memory is a very unreliable source of information. It's good to remind ourselfs of that—if we can remember, that is.
Amen! That is Christianity.
I think that one who believes that it is God alone who sanctifies, as opposed to one who believes it is some sort of cooperative effort, is in a much better position to actually accept and appropriate gifts of truth and learning from God because the focus is centered and solely upon God. That means our sanctification will be higher when looking at the Holy Gospel since our only focus is on God and not our own contributions. To every extent I rely upon myself and my good works for growth (sanctification) I divert attention away from God. What have I to learn from myself that is good? Nothing. But focused on God only, there is an abundance.
AMEN! Christ, who is our "all in all."
God accomplishes our salvation; not us.
Rewriting the langauage again?
To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact. To prearrange unalterably; predestine,ORDAIN:
Anointedly put.
THx.
SHOCKING!
I agree with your last paragraph.
I think I’d better go sit down.
Oh, I am sitting down.
It's "mavericky."/sar :)
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
You'll have to be a wee bit more specific for me to even entertain such a fleeting generalization.
Do you have anything impersonally against God?
On a universal scale, as god in general, as a man-made concept and not my personal experience, yes.
And since I'm already 63, I make it a point to exercise the gray matter every chance I get. LOLOL!
I urgently pray for you to know Him - not just "what" He IS as you have asked, or "that" He IS as Scripture demands of all men (Romans 1:20) but "Who" He IS, not in the abstract but personally, actually.
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known for a half century and counting.
Yes, operative in a sense that he was merely speaking through them as through megaphones. They were not yet "born again" so as to be able to repent. The disciples did not receive the Spirit until Jesus breathed on them. (John 20:22)
Nope, God can accomplish His will no matter who does what.
But the drama told in the Bible shows that he chose a specific chain of events, time, places and individuals in order to do that. Otherwise you have God second-guessing his own creation.
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
That does not change the basic theme of the Bible drama that everything happens according to God's plan, when, where and by whom God willed it, even if some players spoke in tems of their free will. None of us thinks we are walking on a giant ball called the Earth. From our perspective, the earth is deifnitely flat. The big picture, however, says otherwise.
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
From the human point of view. Yet, the concept of God's immutable and perfect plan leads one to admit that everything that happens, every action, every event, is what God willed, or else God is not in control. He wrote the script and actors merely play their part, or else the Bible drama happened by chance. The free will in this case is an illusion.
We are chosen for our charitable works (Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6-10.
If Jesus came to rescue you, then in the created world you are the center, and Carl Sagan be damned with his “billions and billions” of stuff.
And? There is still the ordainer and the doer.
Actually those unfortunate individuals who have Alzheimer's can remember that easily, but they can't remember what they did an hour ago.
Intellectual activity usually keeps the brain going into the old age without much fucntional loss, medical conditions out of our control notwithstanding.
But, I was referring to the quality of human memory in general. Numerous studies have rather conclusively established that human memory is not reliable at all. The scary part is that we pretty much tend to "create" our own memory nad convince outselves that it is factual.
I appreciate your good will, A-G.
INDEED.
Thx for the ping above.
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.