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.
“You don’t rattle off a profession of faith and consider yourself “saved”.”
How does one know when one has done enough to be saved?
That great big wall around Rome is to keep Catholics IN, not non-catholics OUT. And it's built on one condemning work at a time. You've sealed yourself in, annalex, that's not freedom. The Gospel of the Kingdom does not save, it condemns. Because it has been set aside, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. The only Gospel that saves today is the Gospel of the Grace of God.
The constitution was written by Calvinists for the most part ..it reflects the understanding of the depravity of men ..that is why we have checks and balances ..
The scriptures contain all the tradition that God desired to pass on.. what the Catholic church calls "apostolic tradition" often did not enter the church until 300 AD and as late as the 1300's
It seems every time the church wants to add a doctrine they find something to tie it to the apostles ... yet the apostles never taught it os said it or supported it.. all made up of whole cloth
Bingo ...
Those were SOME busy apostles! I don't see how they had time to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to write their Epistles, what with all the tradition that had to be squirreled away, for the future. lol
“God willing, Roman Catholics will read the Bible and realize that a needlessly complicated, arrogantly corrupt bureaucracy is leading them away from Christ.”
.
Amen!
Its so easy that it fools them all. They cannot believe the truth because “its too good to be true,” so they buy into the old scam of working off your sins to be “good enough”
Trouble is good enough just isn’t good enough; Perfection is required, and it cannot be bought.
.
And the NYT attacks Benedict, thinking that thereby they’ve attacked Christianity. Please don’t anybody tell them the truth!
.
I see. It's the dern Protestants fault that Romanists don't take personal responsibility for the lack of responsibility of their Bishops. With all that free will and good works one would think that those Protestants would be such a dern nuisance.
Heck it was the Protestants fault that they sodomized the boys, they could never have learned that from their fellows in the seminary
And then it was the protestants that dug up the now adults and got them to out the church
Then it was the Protestants that got the bishops to hide the sodomy , and the protestants that had the bishops send the priests to new parishes,. and lastly it was the protestants that made them decide not to call the cops and turn their fellows in
It is all that Luther's fault ... a few relics and a few prayers for the dead and everything would be just fine..
If that were true then Scripture would unequivocally state that. Please let me know where it is in Scripture.
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguilded Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3).
It's so simple that they cannot believe there isn't SOMETHING they can do. God has them in derision, not through complicated plans, but through simplicity.
They do not need them..they are obsolete , they have a prophet to tell them what to believe
Luther beat him to it.. we call ourselves Protestants,,,
Any sort of comparison would at a minimum depend on how "protestant" is defined and whether apples are being compared to apples in terms of what "clergy" is. I'm sure there have been a dozen FR threads on this very topic.
What Catholics fail to grasp is that we are damned by our sin, but we are saved by Christ.. not our sinlessness
Amen
What good news? That you get to work your way into heaven ?
I can see why Romanism is so enticing.
Personal responsibility = blame the Protestants = never having to say your sorry.
We also are at fault for global warming ,tornados and hurricanes BUT I refuse to accept responsibility for earth quakes
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.