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.
“So, clearly, faith comes before repentance. If you have no faith why repent?! And in order to have faith, one must receive the the Holy Spirit, i.e. be born “from above.”
A notable effort but not there yet. ‘So faith follows the thing heard and the thing heard was the word about Christ’. (Romans 1:17)
The people HEARD Peter, were STABBED TO THE HEART, asked what they should do (expressions of faith). Peter says to REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and THEN they will receive the holy spirit.
“First, Acts 2:36 says “let all of the house of Israel know for certain (i.e. believe, have faith), and then he says (2:37) “repent and ... be baptized.” (and THEN they will receive holy spirit, don’t miss that!)
“And in order to have faith, one must receive the the Holy Spirit, i.e. be born “from above.”
Not the sequence found there in Acts.
Care to try again?
And for me, the math is even more so amazing. In P.S. Wesson's 5D/2T theory, the 1080 particles in our four dimensional universe may be multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth time like dimension.
Such theories will be important depending on the results of CERN's quest for the Higgs field/boson, i.e. ordinary matter (5% of the critical density of the universe) which so far has not been observed.
The Universe may be flat but it is nevertheless musical
In other words there's no support for what you say except what you call a “logical conclusion”. Whose logic? Yours?You've already said perceptions were deceptive.
And why would anything “surprise” the Almighty? If a real choice was offered to Adam then there would be a possibility of either course of action being chosen.
Adam made a choice and suffered the consequences.
“Unless you can demonstrate that you see the earth's curvature with you naked eye or the makeup of your tongue on a molecular level, the world as we see it from our observer position is a deception for you and me both. It's just that some of us realize it, while others don't.”
There's no requirement upon me to demonstrate anything of the sort. It is you who have asserted perceptions are deception and free will is a deceptive illusion. So assertion is about it.
But I can see the curvature of the earth from a plane and seeing anything on the molecular level probably can't be done.
It was a choice presented to them and I cited it as such
“It was a warning and a threat for them to get in step with his will. If I agree to something while my arm is being twisted that is hardly a free-will decision on my part”
Really depends on the view point of the person, doesn't it?
They all agreed since along with the malediction on the one hand there was blessing on the other. So arm twisting or hand shake really depends on the viewpoint of those involved.
That's how life is. Come in and get warm or stand outside in the snow and freeze to death, eat or starve to death, choose not to rob banks or go to jail, and on and on.
Such a lot of arm twisting!!!
“Human will must be in harmony with God's will, lest you sin. So, the bottom line is: it's “not as I will, but as [God] will[s].”
And if that human will is a deception as you've said it is??
That bottom line was Christ's submission of his will to his father's.
His human will.
lol. That is the fallback position of Rome. When the truth is obviously against them, they attempt to rewrite the language.
You've been arguing the meaning of "ordain" for days in Ephesians 2. And now that you have lost the argument over what that word means in Scripture, you've changed tactics.
If English fails papists, they try Latin. If Latin fails them, they try Greek. If Greek fails them, they just make it up.
"Be prepared." lol. I don't think so. I'll take the centuries' old translation of Eph. 2:10 as "ordained," found in all major translations, over your post-modern rewrite of Greek and theology.
"Be prepared." lol. Christ as Boy Scout.
Do men repent of their own will, or does God first give them the ability to repent?
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" -- 2 Timothy 2:24-25 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
Being born again by the Holy Spirit is an act of God's will, not men's. He names His family. The Holy Spirit regenerates the fallen sinner so that he can know the things of God and repent and believe. The sealing by the Holy Spirit confirms a man's adoption by God.
Would that be a free and perfect will? Or deception and illusion?
Yes.
Q.E.D. So you're the center.
I suggest reading Romans 12:14 beforehand...
Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not.
'K.
If I went by what I see, the water pipe in the community fountain would be the center of the universe, as I previously remarked.
The spiritual eye, however seeks meaning. Since Christ chose each one of us, each one of us is the center of the Created world.
The disease you have is called scientism: a superstitious belief that the methods of natural sciences are solely capable of informing man of the truth.
Branches of Protestantism, specially Calvinists,fell into the heresy of “Total depravity of man”. The truth is that God chose to give us the grace by which we are capable of noble acts that we choose freely. The lie is that we are not, and the good works that we do are mechanical movements caused by God without our collaboration. The latter is never taught in the Bible. The desire to view the universe as if it has a purpose in itself, and view man in it as an accident of nature is the inevitable consequence of Calvin’s theological fantasies. Satan is at the root of this.
Greek's the original language of the Letter to the Ephesians, "doctor".
Very well; we have the "seed" for a discussion between Christian brothers -- on an issue that I have been striving to illuminate (literally -- with graphics).
No doubt, your thoughts on the matter will prove useful to both of us -- and, perhaps, to the "peanut gallery" <LOL!!!!> of our fellow believers -- like A-G & bb... :-)
Asking what to do is not an expression of the faith! LOL. When someone says "you know for sure" you either answer "yes" or "no" but not "what should we do?" LOL!
If Peter said "now you know for sure and you know what to do..." but he didn't. And if they knew for sure they would have also known what to do.
So, then, we have a problem Houston (otra vez) because in order for one to believe he or she must receive the Spirit (i.e. be spiritually baptized, be born from above), first, right?
Some have argued that the Jews believed in God all along, but that's not enough. One must come to Jesus in order to come to God, right? In order to accept Jesus as one's Savior he or she must be 'licked' but the fire of the Holy Spirit, right? Only once you know you have sinned then can you repent.
So, it seems to me that who call themselves Christians are generally divided over what comes here first: faith, repentance, baptism (mainline Protestantism) or, as you claim (and your view seems to be supported by more biblical verses in that regard), repentance, baptism, Spirit.
The only problem is that your order doesn't explain how can anyone repent without knowing first what is wrong.
As I said, Houston, we have a problem (big time).
Arguing the negative naybob of negativity style, instead of dealing with the subject directly, does not make your arguments very convincing. You said that God did not plan for Adam to sin. Then what was he doing planting the tree, and creating the conditions for the sin to occur? Hoping?
Obviosuly Jesus must have believed that using his "free and perfect will" would have been an a mistaken illusion, so he submitted to his Father's will even though for a fleeting moment he thought otherwise. He did what he had to do, not what he wanted to do. What he really wanted was for him not to be tortured and cruficied, like any human being would.
How is that different from cherry-picking verses until one "proves" the desired interpretation? Or, for that matter, interpreting difficult verses by making up what really amounts to a "lawyer's rationalization"?
Context matters, but context does not nullify what the words say.
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.