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.
And with that, dear brother, you have hit on what makes the Body of Scripture so miraculous. That a document of so many parts, from so many authors shows the guidance of a single Divine Hand in its construction
I suggest you read the works of mostly Protestant ministers from the late 17th century until the late 19th century, who are mostly repsonsible for the Bible versions you read today.
Begin with John Mill, a Protestant minister at Queens College, in England, and work your way through Richard Bentley, Richard Simon, Johann Bengel, Johann Wettstein, Karl Lachmann, Löbegott von Tischendorff, Brooke Westcot and Fenton Hort to find out more about man-made "harmonizing" of the scriptures.
Which Orthodox (Jews, Christians) and what do they disagree with me on?
It is enough to get the basics right. No one needs to read Greek in order to understand they have been bought with a terrible price - Christ's death on the cross. A child can understand it. In fact, we are supposed to believe like children, which means we are to trust God, even when that seems almost impossible.
But the basics are pretty clear in Scripture because that's how God meant it to be for those who are His. The Holy Spirit will make known in Scripture that which is unclear or confusing or unimaginable, if that is God's will. Justification by the faith of Jesus Christ alone. The Trinity. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
The inveigling free willism that has crept back into Protestantism since the Reformation and thus, as Toplady reminded us, is returning the church back to Rome, is all secondary to the primacy of God's word and will.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Is that so hard to do?
"Anna," in what language does your church preach? Does the congregation understand your priest?
I am very well aware of that. It's not really something to brag about. :)
I doubt they saw the word change as a "correction" for the simple reason that the words mean the same thing.
No they don't because they are not synonymous and because the context of the sentence shows that they are not.
d-fendr: “should” walk. Is the greek in this tense?
No. The verb peripateo (to walk, in this instance in a figurative way, as in conduct) is in the aorist (i.e. without regard to past, present or future, i.e. the "eternal present")
The voice is active, which means that it is intended for us to do the work.
And the mood is subjunctive. This is actually the key. The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. In other words, the action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. So, nothing "ordained" or imperative about it!
The Church, of course, understood her own language the best and therefore did not teach that our walking in the works prepared by God was a preordained act, but something we must do on our own.
There is nothing to be afraid of. The world is as it is. We can't change it. What will be will be—and that's about as close as saying "Thy will be done!" That's all the faith you need. The rest is a man-made tale as far as I am concerned.
Remember “River of FIre”?
The theology is that what we should be afraid of is the wrath of God. That salvation saves us from God’s wrath.
That is a complete non-sequitur to what I wrote. I suggested you read up on "harmonzation" of the Bible. And why should I be 'disappointed' because you have a Jerualem Bible on your desk? What kind of reasoning is that?
A look at Ephesians 20:1 shows the NJB does not translate the subjunctive mood very well, although it does a good job of calling the "walk" in the figurative sense intended in Greek, as "our way of life," and avoids the usage of imeprtaive words such as "should."
Yes Kalomiros is spot on when he says that in the West believers are saved from God and not by God.
The little yellow circles with the initials of our four handles shows annalex' view as I read it.
You and I seem to be in different worlds.
As I said, I don’t want to consume your valuable time. The subject is closed.
The excerpt from The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library is a perfect fit for this "who is man" sidebar. I do note the classic theme of man's being situated between time and eternity, physical and spiritual. Surely, man knows he does not belong "here."
Plato was particularly sensitive to that and then Justin Martyr as you described. Martyr of course was blessed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And it is my true belief that Plato heard it also, albeit "on the other side."
However, it does not exist for our enjoyment but for His pleasure:
And I do not relate to the iconography at all.
I don’t think I have a dog in this fight, but from a purely physical science point of view, where is the center of the universe?
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.