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's a little naïve. They would have known for certain that Jesus was crucified, but why would they know for certain that he was "the one God had made the Christ"? Because a simple fisherman told them? They would have believed Peter but not Christ? LOL.
You say so, what do the Scriptures say?
The scriptures say the Spirit is the giver of life, and dead people do not repent. So, receive the Spirit (come to life with a changed heart), realize your trespasses, repent, and be baptized.
John the Baptist called upon the Jews coming to him to repent of their sins
Jewish repentance is different.
Apparently the choice he wanted was for him not to go through the ordeal, but he relizied that what is ordained must happen and that man's will cannot change it. Just as death is a given and not a choice; men can accept it or reject it, but what we will is for naught.
When nothing else works claim it’s all a set up, use “LOL” freely and make with the silly remarks.
Outstanding!!
I guess when someone can’t understand the plain meaning of Scripture, they need all the help they can get.
None of those names apply to us.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
The plain meaning is in the original language, Dr. E. Problems begin with translations. Something is always lost in them.
Besides, even in the original language the scriptures are not plain in meaning. So, translations, among other things, only add to the complexity—and misunderstanding.
I've been PWD = posting while distracted.
8~)
lol. Still one of the funniest lines ever. 8~)
Yes and no. For example, Matthew 5:58 is in the future tense but in many—if not most#151;English-language Bibles it is in the present.
Nicodemus' misunderstanding of John 3:3 would not be possible in Aramaic, and it is doubtful—baseless in fact—that Jesus wold have spoken to Nicodemus in sophisticated Greek.
Then there is the ambiguity of the Greek text itself, which in some cases actually leading to divergent and even conflicting doctrine. For example the sentence ef ho pantes hemarton (Roman 5:12) can be understood legitimately in two different ways. The western Church interpreted it as an inherited sin, while the Eastern Church (in whose native language the New Testament was written) didn't.
This resulted in the Augustinian teaching that eventually forced the issue of Mary's own Immaculate Conception, which of course has no theological basic in the East.
For similar reasons, the East looks at Adam's life being passed on from one generation to another, while the West looks at each soul being created anew at the moment of conception.
So, to speak of "plain meaning" of scriptures is a fallacy. People have spent a lifetime studying the scriptures and to this day there is no consensual agreement on them. Of course, I think the reason for that is rather obvious, but I doubt it would be well received here.
In summary, then, the original language does clarify a lot of subtleties, but it doesn't mean that the original language itself is free of ambiguities. And translations only add another layer additional ambiguities and errors.
You'll kindly show me where I said that or else please admit you're making things up again.
I asked you before if you missed my assent to your proposal. Apparently you're still missing it. Do you want to miss it? Did it surprise and upset you when I agreed to your terms? Did I stymie what you may have hoped to be a "gotcha!" moment, when in fact all it has turned out to be is more RC evasion?
lol. Oops on you.
Proof doesn’t matter you said - as you demonstrated your free will to accept or reject it.
Again, show me where I made that statement.
I sense you were trying to set up some kind of strategy here, but perhaps you forgot how it was supposed to go or I didn't answer as you had planned.
Let's get back to your question without all your evasion, shall we?
You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?
And I said yes.
I asked you to show your proof.
And yet you have not.
With all that free will floating around can't you use some of it to find some proof somewhere for your supposition?
No?
As Einstein said, our job is to make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
When Christ said, "Be not afraid; only believe," He was telling men, women and children how to come to a saving knowledge of the truth.
Lexicons appreciated, but not required.
"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I
Again, we'll all wait for you to produce the post where I "said I wouldn't."
But, I do appreciate your participation in the demonstration.
The only thing that's been demonstrated is that you don't know how to run a demonstration.
For clarity's sake, here is your request and my answer...
I answered your question. Help me out then. Was it "Yes" "No" or "Maybe"? 978 posted on 07/15/2010 7:38:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr Are you stalling? Yes. Sure. Alrighty. Definitely. Absolutely. But of course. Mais, qui. You betcha...To: Dr. Eckleburg
And here I "helped you out" and STILL you missed my answer.
I guess your free will has been trumped by mine. Imagine what God could do with that set-up. Do you think He knows about it?
Half right.
Scripture is clear that regeneration precedes faith, repentance, obedience and any good work man might accomplish.
Can the natural man understand the things of God or must he be first born again?
Post 965, and reiterated following.
But, if you’d like, you can change your mind of course.
If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?
Actually, the question was: "If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?"
And I said yes.
Q.E.D. Assuming you made that decision consciously and freely of course.
I guess your free will has been trumped by mine.
Q.E.D.
Would you care to demonstrate again?
No, I think it’s more a simple lack of paying attention to what is being said.
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.