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.
How does anyone's doing anything "prove" free will?
It doesn't.
Try again.
Thank you for your demonstration.
I can only refer you to post 985...for the third time.
(Help me out then. Was it "Yes" "No" or "Maybe"?) Are you stalling? Yes. Sure. Alrighty. Definitely. Absolutely. But of course. Mais, qui. You betcha... 985 posted on 07/15/2010 8:09:50 PM PDT by Dr. EckleburgTo: D-fendr
Actually, this is all quite familiar. Tedious, but familiar.
Roman Catholics cannot defend their faith Scripturally, rationally nor, from the looks of it, sincerely.
Instead, they go off on goofy tangents.
You stated you could prove free will. I stated I would believe it if you proved it.
You have not proven free will. Therefore your argument is null and void.
As God wills.
One demonstrates it - most convincing to his or her self - by freely making choices. It seems to me you're now choosing to go back to your first answer:
"First, you will have to define free will. Then offer as much proof as you desire. It doesn't matter."Is it your choice not to accept any proof? Either way, how did you arrive at your position? Did you examine evidence as you saw it and rationally arrive at a decision?
You stated you could prove free will.
Again, the question was: If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
I stated I would believe it if you proved it.
Your first answer indicated no, I asked for yes, no or maybe and your replied with a string of affirmatives.
If you choose to accept a demonstration of free will you have demonstrated a free will choice.
Hence, Q.E.D.
lol. And how does one know their choice is being freely made?
It seems to me you're now choosing to go back to your first answer:
My "first answer" asked for a definition of "free will" which you failed to provide.
No surprise there. When it was obvious no definition was forthcoming, I agreed to your proposition in post 985.
After agreeing to your proposition in 985, you have proceeded to say I declined your proposition.
Not quite as expected, but par for the RC course.
Either way, how did you arrive at your position?
What position would that be?
If you're not going to be honest in this fluff of yours, you're wasting both our time.
Ok, if that’s a problem, let’s get your answer straight. I’ll ask again.
If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
Says who?
That's like saying "the sky is blue because the color of the sky is blue."
When this mind-numbing idiocy of yours began I actually held out hope for na interesting exchange.
Disappointed by Romanist failings once again.
See post 985.
Yep, it's pretty tight.
Says who?
You. Or did you not freely decide your answer?
And there's just enough memories of old English teachers in me that has struggled to hold back correcting your grammar, but it's late and I'm weakening.
Your sentence should read...
If Free Will (capitalized, no less) were...
You can thank me later.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" -- Phil. 2:13
I realize RCs don't put much stock in Scripture, but that's what Paul tells us and I see no reason to doubt him.
Does it feel as if we are unfettered creatures at liberty to do what we please? Sure. And that's part of our fallen human nature, to see ourselves as movers and shakers of our own destinies.
That is not, however, what the Bible tells us. The Bible says men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. We act according to our natures, whether they be natural or spiritual.
Which is yours?
Why refuse to answer and go around in circles while complaining about miscommunication? Your reply seems a bit dodgy.
As does your grammar criticism.
Whatever you choose to do is fine with me.
Are you asking me to choose? How do recommend I go about doing that?
I am sorry: I explained the scripture and your mistranslation of it to you -- not the other way around.
See 1165 about Eph. 2:10.
But He set His tabernacle with men. The Lamb is standing as slain in our churches each time the Eucharist is elevated. Alpha and Omega is inscribed on His altar. He made us the center of the created world. He is with us. Behold:
For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. [12] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13] For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. (Phil. 2)
The original language allows us to see the meaning in relation to other possible meanings. For example, both "ordain" (τάσσω) and "prepare" (ἑτοιμάζω) are used in the original New Testament. One can arrive at the proper meaning by observing which is used and, as in the case on hand, Eph. 2:10, which is not used, but the Protestant translation would cram it in there anyway and hope no one will notice.
However, deriving theology from the scripture alone is an absurd proposition, as not every possible error of man is similarly anticipated.
Once more, with emphasis:
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11
Humility not pride.
Every one [that is] proud in heart [is] an abomination to the LORD: [though] hand [join] in hand, he shall not be unpunished. - Proverbs 16:5
Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. - Proverbs 16:18
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. - I Peter 5:5
For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls [which] I have made. For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart.
I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to [him that is] far off, and to [him that is] near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.
But the wicked [are] like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. [There is] no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. - Isaiah 57:15-21
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.