~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I aver that it is about God, not me. He is the first cause and the final cause.
“It is about” is an impossible expression to either agree or disagree. Surely God is the primary Mover, first Cause and master Architect, but in the created world His divine attention was centered on you. Not on the galaxies, not on the flies in the elevator — on you. So who’s the center?
TRUE. TRUE.
LOL!!! There are a lot of us who comment here who wish we were able to make that distinction! '-}
I do not exist independently of Him. I exist because of Him, by Him and for Him.
Therefore I aver God is the center of "all that there is."
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
It's (1) repent and be (2) baptized ("reborn"), in that order (cf Act 2;38). Also, there is no repentance without "appropriate works" (cf Act 26:20). So it seems that "rebirth" is evidence of repentance and good works, and not the other way around.
Imperfect memory leads to imperfect knowledge, and imperfect knowledge to imperfect judgment. So, by necessity, we all believe imperfectly.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -- John 10:26-27"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
And "to ordain" means...
To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact. To prearrange unalterably; predestine, ORDAIN:
Therefore, your understanding of "ordain" ("Ordaining something is not the same as doing something") is incorrect, by definition.
To "enact" and "prearrange unalterably."
Thus the "doer" will "do" what the "ordainer" "prearranges unalterably."
I know this shocks some who have been led to believe they are in control of their lives, but there is a higher authority than our own free will.
The will and purpose of God which no man can thwart.
Not so. God's spirit gave unusual physical strength to Samson. (Judges 14:19) God's spirit gave skill to the craftsmen constructing the Tabernacle. (Ex. 32:1-11) God's spirit enabled Simeon to prophesy (Luke 2:25-27) Men wrote Scripture by God's spirit. (2 Peter 1:20) No megaphones.
“They were not yet “born again” so as to be able to repent.”
Half right is also half wrong. They were not yet ‘born again’, yes.
The pattern was repent, baptism, receive spirit. (Acts 2:38)
“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.”
No “otherwise”. A false conclusion with a false base.
Adam was condemned not because it was part of God's plan that he sin but, ‘because he listened to his wife's voice’
(Gen. 3:17) God then responds to Adam's free will choice.
Might Adam have not ‘listened to his wife's voice’? Of course as God says what He now does is ‘becasue”, a result of, due to Adam's action.
Was it part of His plan for Adam to sin? No.
“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”
Then everyone who thought they were making choices was deceived, mistaken? Moses when he chose to side with the Israelites? Joshua, when he spoke for himself before the whole nation? Elijah, when he told the Israelites to ‘quit limping along on two opinions, but to choose Jehovah or Baal’?
Why that the Almighty's ability to accomplish His will with or without human cooperation, despite anyone’s free will decisions would be called “second guessing his own creation” is a mystery.
“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”
The ability of humans to choose between one course of action and another is also God's viewpoint. The Israelites could choose to accept God's covenant as He said at Ex. 19:1-9, “IF you will obey my voice THEN you will become...”
They choose, God acts according to their choice. His word, His view point. Just as Moses, by God's spirit, set out the choices available at Deut. 30:15, “life and good or death and bad, blessing or malediction, their choice.
“Yet, the concept of God's immutable and perfect plan leads one to admit........”
Why would it lead one to assume that allowing humans free will would somehow mean God was not in control when the examples given of humans being given a choice by God in no way frustrated His plans or took control from Him?
“He wrote the script and actors merely play their part, or else the Bible drama happened by chance.”
Again, a false choice and one not supported by what the Bible says.
“The free will in this case is an illusion.”
And a false conclusion. Why would we assume God wants us to act on an “illusion”?
Which one is the order?
“They were not yet “born again” so as to be able to repent.”
or repent and reborn?
Jesus did not come here because you are the "center" of everything -- or of anything. He Himself said he came here because we (including you and yours truly) are sinners.
Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost."
Suggested reading: Romans 12:3...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, that's not what Act 2:38 says. It says repent (first) and (then) be baptized.
count your change: "The pattern was repent, baptism, receive spirit. (Acts 2:38)" (Post #1153)
Hello, Houston, we have a problem!
The Royal “WE”?
“They were not yet “born again” so as to be able to repent.” kosta
I was referring to your specific reference of Apostle being sent to preach and the Spirit speaking through them.
The pattern was repent, baptism, receive spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Sure seems that way, but that's not what is taught. Dr. E, your comments?
Adam was condemned not because it was part of God's plan that he sin but, ‘because he listened to his wife's voice’ (Gen. 3:17) God then responds to Adam's free will choice.
Sure sounds like God is waiting a man's table. Whatever man decides, God goes along. Strange theology. Dr. E, your opinion?
Was it part of His plan for Adam to sin? No.
Oh? He got caught by surprise then? Didn't he? Dr. E?
Then everyone who thought they were making choices was deceived, mistaken?
Yes and no, it seems. Our perception is a deception. If we put too much faith in our perception we believe an illusion. It is a mistake. The earth is not what it looks like to us. On a molecular and cosmic scale, all our perceptions are false.
We can't possibly know for sure what is driving us.
Moses when he chose to side with the Israelites?
How do you know it wasn't God "influencing" his decision? God did just about everything else. Dr. E?
Why that the Almighty's ability to accomplish His will with or without human cooperation, despite anyone’s free will decisions would be called “second guessing his own creation” is a mystery
Because you haven't explained how the Almighty might accomplish his Plan as he wills is if he is too busy accommodating every oneles' free will.
You say that God did not Plan for Adam to sin? So, then, God was wrong, because Adam went against his plan and sinned. Dr. E in your opinion did God plan for Adam to sin or did he just accept whatever Adam dished out?
The Israelites could choose to accept God's covenant as He said at Ex. 19:1-9, “IF you will obey my voice THEN you will become...”
That's not an if they don't then God has to scrap his plan, but "if you don't then I will bring evil upon you until you change your mind and do as I want you to do!"
Why would we assume God wants us to act on an “illusion”?
He doesn't. Everything in the Bible seems to suggest that he wants his people to follow his will and not their will (perhaps because their will is an illusion), unless their will is the same as his will.
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.