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 is correct. And while I suspect your advocacy of this correct Scriptural position is somewhat supercilious (a thousand pardons if that's not the case) the natural man, left on his own, is simply the son of his first father, Adam, fallen and incapable of righteousness or of pleasing God.
A man must first be born again by the Holy Spirit to know the things of God, as John spends a lot of time telling us. Then, and only then, will we be able to feel sorrow for our sins, repent of them, work to sin no more and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Savior. And that is because those who have been born again by the Spirit have been justified by Christ's sacrifice; they have been given new eyes and new ears and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind, all of which makes up the spiritual man who then, and only then, will believe to the saving of his soul.
Salvation is of the Lord through grace and grace alone. Salvation is not payment for any free will "correct answers." It is a gift, freely given by God to whom He will, according to mercy and not debt. Read Ephesians 1.
Thus the correct Christian perspective is gratitude. Period. Gratitude. Gratitude. Gratitude.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Phil. 2:13
I think if you re-visit the discussion, starting here or earlier and pay attention to your replies and pings, you'll find it.
How is that different from going to Latin and if Latin doesn't explain it to Greek?
Context matters, but context does not nullify what the words say
I couldn't agree more except add that the original is always better than a translation.
If the later is true, then the sum total of RC apologists' defense of their faith is zero.
Kosta: in order for one to believe he or she must receive the Spirit (i.e. be spiritually baptized, be born from above), first, right?
Dr. E: That is correct. And while I suspect your advocacy of this correct Scriptural position is somewhat supercilious (a thousand pardons if that's not the case) the natural man, left on his own, is simply the son of his first father, Adam, fallen and incapable of righteousness or of pleasing God.
I am simply reiterating what I understand to be the reformed (possibly only Calvinist) view of this issue. In short, one must be alive before one can do anything. He who is dead can do nothing, even repent.
So, in order to repent one must be regenerated, i.e. spiritually re-animated into faith, so that one can repent. In order to repent one must realize his fall which cannot be realized without faith.
Baptism does nothing except serve as the outward manifsestation, or witness to that faith and repentance through faith.
But not all Bible-believing Christains see it that way. Thye argue that whenever repentance is mentioned in connection to toher factors, repentance is listed first. So, there is a serious theological split among Bible-believing Christians on that issue. I will admit that the Calvinist view makes more sense, but the opposite view is Biblically closer.
It seems that you didn't re-read it. A little thought and it becomes obvious - hidden in plain sight. It was in the form of a question about whether you would accept free will if it were demonstrated.
The question was: ""If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?"
You said you wouldn't, no matter how much proof, because... And gave your reasons and discussion, and then reaffirmed your answer.
You have considered the evidence and conditions, and arrived at your decision. Thus you demonstrated your free will.
Naturally, this cannot be acceptable proof to you as you have stated that no amount of proof matters to you in this area.
But, I do appreciate your participation in the demonstration.
It was in their situation. They felt stabbed to the heart and asked what to do in view of what Peter had just said, that they had impaled the one God had made Christ, Jesus. That was what they knew for a certainty.
Their actions show they asked with faith in what Peter was going to tell them. Faith follows the thing heard (Romans 10:17)
“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?”
You say so, what do the Scriptures say?
“Some have argued that the Jews believed in God all along, but that's not enough.”
‘Some have said’??? “Some” have said” all manner of things!!
John the Baptist called upon the Jews coming to him to repent of their sins. They were in a covenant with God so their sins were their violations of that covenant.
“..... 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?”
Wrong sequence.......again...and again....
“..... Only once you know you have sinned then can you repent.”
Agreed. And?
“So, it seems to me that who call themselves Christians are generally divided over what comes here first: faith, repentance, baptism (mainline Protestantism)......”
Does ‘Mainline Prtestantism skip or ignore the spirit part?
.......or, as you claim (and your view seems to be supported by more biblical verses in that regard), repentance, baptism, Spirit.”
I have to go with the Scriptures.
“The only problem is that your order doesn't explain how can anyone repent without knowing first what is wrong.”
Of course it does and there is no problem with it unless one assumes something not supported by the Scriptures.
One purpose of preaching God's Word was to call people to repentance, to inform those in ignorance of God's will.
Paul told the men of Athens that God had overlooked their ignorance (thinking that the Deity could be a sculpted contrivance) and telling all men everywhere to repent seeing a a day of judgment was coming. (Acts 17:29, 30)
Jonah went to Nineveh and preached to the wicked people and they repented in sack cloth. (Jonah chapter 3)
Both were informed by the preaching of God's word, only one group took it to heart. That's how we know what is wrong, God's Word tells people if they are willing to listen.
Wasn't Houston's reply to the astronauts, “No. YOU have a problem”.
Indeed, dear brother in Christ!
From the standpoint of the Creation and the Holy Scriptures, it does appear that man has a privileged position in the divine order of being.
Also it appears that the individual human person, as a center of self-aware consciousness, has a natural habit of thinking he is somehow "at the center of things." And that is certainly true — He is the "center" of the world which "surrounds" him as a sort of "other" on all sides. As an observer, he can see only what he can see from where he stands, from some given spatiotemporal point. But that ain't seeing much, i.e., of the "all that there is." Plus our physical vision isn't too sharp. As you pointed out in your last, in the starfield depicted there are only two stars; the other lights are galaxies.... It needed more than human eyesight to grasp this.
Having said that, I just want to note the absolutely unbridgeable chasm between what God sees, and what His plans are for the Creation; and what man sees, from a planet of a middling star which is not even located in the center of its galaxy, not to mention what his plans may be....
And I do thank you for the explanation about Calvinism in your subsequent post, but truly I avoid debating such doctrines.
Rather I love to discuss the revelations of God the Father in 1) the Person of Jesus Christ, 2) the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scriptures, and 4) Creation both spiritual and physical.
All of these revelations harmonize together in revealing Who God IS and I have been ecstatic in our unity on this thread declaring His Name and praising Him!
Now the sidebar has turned to “who man is” - a different perspective altogether and one in which TXnMA and I find ourselves in disagreement with you. But that disagreement does not mean that either of us give more weight to the revelation of God in the physical Creation than to His revelations in Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Scripture and the spiritual Creation. Not at all.
My discernment of “who man is” may be unique; nevertheless I will attempt to explain my view of the divine calculus.
Over the past few days, we’ve shown the enormity of God’s physical creation and how miniscule a physical man actually is in relation to it. In the strictest terms, no physical man is the center of the physical universe. God, on the other hand, sees all of it, all at once – and not just a cosmic overview but all the way down to the quantum fields or particles.
But that is just the physical man.
And neither his form (geometry of his autonomy) nor his constituent molecules sum up to who the man “is.” Indeed all of his molecules are replaced every seven years as I recall. And his form is relative over space and time. It is all quite dynamic in this physical creation.
Man is not the sum of his physical parts.
Indeed, I aver that who a particular man “is” – whether physically or spiritually as a living soul - is information, i.e. a particular message being communicated.
Bear with me…
Physically speaking, the message is DNA – a message unique to each one of us. The message is “who” a man physically “is.” As long as the message is being communicated throughout his autonomous physical body, the man is physically alive. When it ceases to be communicated, he is physically dead. He is physically dead not because the message disappears (DNA doesn’t yield to entropy right away) but because the message is not being communicated.
Moreover, by the very fact of his existence on some finite worldline of the space/time continuum, the universe has been physically “informed.” Physically, who he is and his entire life is “on the record.” God sees all of it.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. – Genesis 2:19
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. – Genesis 3:22-24
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28
We are rescued by a message being communicated to us. And that message is not who we are but rather, Who Christ IS. Spiritually speaking, we Christians are that message being communicated to us, in us and through us.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-18
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. –I Corinthians 12:3
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. – Romans 10:9
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:5-8
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. – Romans 12:4-5
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. – Romans 8:15-17
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
Lol. The "conundrum" belongs to d-fendr. He boasted he could prove free will existed. Perhaps you missed my acceptance of his challenge.
But d-fendr has yet to show us his evidence. Nada.
What do you get when two RC apologists meet? A lot of pats on the back and not much else.
Unless you can prove free will exists, as you assured us, d-dendr, your failure to support your assertion will stand.
As God wills.
Challenge? Naw, it was a question. Now, It’s kind of a moot exercise for you.
Because you’ve already said that even if Free Will was demonstrated to be true, you would not accept it. Proof doesn’t matter you said - as you demonstrated your free will to accept or reject it.
Anyway, it’s your decision, I’m fine with it. And I appreciate your demonstration.
Oh please! Your conclusion has no support and now you say it being negative to point that out. You call it “logical”, but why is it logical, how is it logical if our perceptions are deceptive?
Or am I to accept at face value every statement you make?
“..... 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?”
Yes, I did, based upon what God said to Adam.
“Then what was he doing planting the tree, and creating the conditions for the sin to occur? Hoping?”
What is being done when I put up a “no trespassing” sign and cite the laws against doing so? Creating conditions for law breaking? Hoping? Or exercising my right to do as I wish with I own? To admit or exclude whom I wish from picking fruit from a tree I planted and own? From a tree I made the exception to a rule and posed no hardship to anyone to avoid?
It was in their situation. They felt stabbed to the heart and asked what to do in view of what Peter had just said, that they had impaled the one God had made Christ, Jesus. That was what they knew for a certainty.
Their actions show they asked with faith in what Peter was going to tell them. Faith follows the thing heard (Romans 10:17)
“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?”
You say so, what do the Scriptures say?
“Some have argued that the Jews believed in God all along, but that's not enough.”
‘Some have said’??? “Some” have said” all manner of things!!
John the Baptist called upon the Jews coming to him to repent of their sins. They were in a covenant with God so their sins were their violations of that covenant.
“..... 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?”
Wrong sequence.......again...and again....
“..... Only once you know you have sinned then can you repent.”
Agreed. And?
“So, it seems to me that who call themselves Christians are generally divided over what comes here first: faith, repentance, baptism (mainline Protestantism)......”
Does ‘Mainline Protestantism skip or ignore the spirit part?
.......or, as you claim (and your view seems to be supported by more biblical verses in that regard), repentance, baptism, Spirit.”
I have to go with the Scriptures.
“The only problem is that your order doesn't explain how can anyone repent without knowing first what is wrong.”
Of course it does and there is no problem with it unless one assumes something not supported by the Scriptures.
One purpose of preaching God's Word was to call people to repentance, to inform those in ignorance of God's will.
Paul told the men of Athens that God had overlooked their ignorance (thinking that the Deity could be a sculpted contrivance) and telling all men everywhere to repent seeing a a day of judgment was coming. (Acts 17:29, 30)
Jonah went to Nineveh and preached to the wicked people and they repented in sack cloth. (Jonah chapter 3)
Both were informed by the preaching of God's word, only one group took it to heart. That's how we know what is wrong, God's Word tells people if they are willing to listen.
Wasn't Houston's reply to the astronauts, “No. YOU have a problem”.
Standing accused of “trying Greek”: priceless.
I love this forum.
There is a pedagogocal value in reducing hubris (also, it is important to confront secular humanism, Calvinism’s bastard child), but it should not be done at the expense of correct anthropology.
May be I was overly polemical. Writing from the very presumption that I am talking to a spiritually alert man I was somewhat starled to be confronted with Saganesque appeal to pictures and numbers. Hopefully, the reader of this thread will recognize the inadequacy of such illustrations when discussing what man is.
So obviously, I am not the center of universe, not physically and not spiritually. I am merely a part of His body. It is “about” Him, not me.
Thank you for the wonderful essay, but this conclusion is not supported by it. That Jesus took on human form signifies that our human race was the center of His divine attention. Therefore, we are the center of the universe that He created. Now, that does not make Jesus any less God or invites us to NOT focus our lives on Jesus, and if you will center them around Jesus. You are raising a false dichotomy. I don't know if it is scientism or Calvinism you are advancing but it is plain illogical.
Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you (1 Corinthians 3:16)
“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.”
One doesn't follow the other. How do you arrive at “Obviosuly Jesus must have believed that using his “free and perfect will” would have been an a mistaken illusion”, from submitting to his father? That in its self was a choice freely made.
” What he really wanted was for him not to be tortured and cruficied, like any human being would.”
No mistaken illusion then, no deceptive perception either.
So the source of faith are mortals telling others to believe, Peter, Paul, Jonah, etc and not God? The more I read your arguments the more I believe the whole thing is a man-made charade.
Oh, please, this is getting way too deep for my boots. Let's try to be be serious (even thought it's an effort with this type of material). You are the one who tells me he is called the Almighty for a reason and he can accomplish whatever he wants even if we don't want to listen and obey.
God always gets what he wants. So, if the Almighty God didn't want man to sin then man would not have sinned! Period. Why else go through the charade described in Genesis?
"No trespassing" sign! LOL!
To admit or exclude whom I wish from picking fruit from a tree I planted and own?
God didn't need that tree in the Garden. He planted it there to exclude the only two human beings on earth? LOL! How about placing two, or two thousand angels with fiery swords to guard the tree? That sure would have kept both unwanted visitors out (just as God did at the entrance to the Garden after he kicked Adam and Eve out). Or was that an "I should have had a V8" moment?
From a tree I made the exception to a rule and posed no hardship to anyone to avoid?
Oh, an the serpent came there on his "free will" to beguile the woman? God had nothing to do with that either? LOL!
Of course, God could have made the fruit unappealing too...barbs, bad odor, etc., but no, he didn't; he made it look tasty and appealing to entice Eve to want it. And he made it easily accessible.
Everything points to a deliberate set-up, nothing short of a trap.
Worth repeating. I mean, one can't get lower than that/s. :)
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.