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 know that how? Read Greek much?
It does, Eph 2:2 (the same passage), as well as Matthew 25:41-46, Romans 2:8-9 describe those.
Read the gospel every now and then and you will understand authentic Christianity.
The Doctor a few posts later: for 400 years that "error" was permitted to remain because, as we all know, there are so many Calvinists in the world and their influence is so vast and deep today
The decpetion of "ordained" in Eph 2:10 is not to defend Calvinism specifically but the entire false edifice of PRotestantism, since salvation by faith alone is their foundational error, important to all of them.
The influence of Protestantism generally is sfnificant in the Anglosphere, where it was introduced thrugh Elizabethan terror. Calvinism indeed is to silly to be of theological importance but I saw arguments that it was instrumental in building the United States.
The error has remained in the Protestant translations because like any error it fits the presumptions of the times better, as the Protestant world marched toward mindless secularism. It is still an error, and the meaning is defintely not the same, since your yourself argued for the false one against the correct one just a day ago, in 1186:
"Be [sic] prepared." lol. I don't think so. I'll take the centuries' old [this is where the real 'lol' belongs (A-x)] translation of Eph. 2:10 as "ordained," ...
It is an enjoyable topic. Of course we all four realize that we are speaking of “center” being the best metaphor for the place of man in the created world, not the geometrical center of the time-space, or of rotational patterns we observe in astrophysics.
They stated correcting most glaring errors like this one in late 20c. I think, when American Catholicism cleared its throat.
At least NIV and the like admit form the outset that they are basically rewrites by committee. KJ, however, has a status of authority and it does not deserve it.
The deuterocanonical books, whatever their status is, are not necessary to expose the error of Protestantism; the New Testament is sufficient for that, as we’ve seen. Also, unliek the mistranslations, the Deuterocanonical were not sneaked in hoping no one will notice: they are in every Christian Bible prior to Luther’s shenanigans with it.
αυτου γαρ εσμεν ποιημα κτισθεντες εν χριστω ιησου επι εργοις αγαθοις οις προητοιμασεν ο θεος ινα εν αυτοις περιπατησωμεν"so that" is I think the best literal translation. Prepared so that we walk in them.
See ινα
Yeah! To the Max! (as one poster likes to put it).
This is why I, for example, would not argue with the Protestants about their approach to the liturgical form, or their endless arguments over some prophesies, or use of sacred art, or predilection to self-appointed ministers. The error of Sola Fide, however, is their basic error from which all others big and small follow. That is also squarely contradicted by the scripture. It is important to correct that one.
The homilies were always said in the local tongue in the Catholic Church. So are the readings following Vatican II in most cases, although, happily, Latin is used mor eand more as well. In English, the lousy NAB is used. Hopefully, not for long.
However, the dangers of bad translations are obviated in Catholicism because the Catholics are asked to listen to the interpretation of the scripture proposed by the Church, rather than form their own impressions of it. The Church never interpreted Eph 2:8-10 as to teach Sola Fide, and, of course, the original text bears the Catholic interpretation out. It teaches salvation by grace alone, but not by faith alone.
The Slavonic Bible translates it that way (as expected): да [that] внихъ [in them] ходимъ [we walk].
Nothing imperative or "ordained" about it. The mood is subjunctive, i.e. that we may walk.
Sounds like you expect Holy Spirit to instantly perfect a believer
or else you’re ready to claim no involvement at all.
Interesting all or nothing construction on reality . . .
I guess “work out your own Salvation with fear and trembling” must have been ripped out of your ‘Bible.’
you: So, then, he is in the physical center of the universe, right where the Big Bang occurred?
If they were, God would be physical. But He is not physical.
As I said back at 1343,
That is the beginning of space and time and therefore, physical causality. All that physically is extends from the physical beginning to the physical end. And time is not necessarily linear.
Again, quoting myself:
It is not nothing.
For more on the beginning ex nihilo (the beginning of space, time and causality) please refer back to post 882.
Space and time do not pre-exist, they are created as the universe expands. Moreover the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
Some theorists suggest this acceleration is due to dark energy, i.e. space between galaxies which is some 70% of the critical density of the universe. The remaining critical density is 25% dark matter (high gravity regions such as the center of the Milky Way galaxy) and 5% ordinary matter which is the Higgs field/boson under the Standard Model yet to be observed though CERN is working on it.
Geometrically speaking, dark matter regions are space/time indentations or high positive gravity areas. Objects may orbit the well, achieve escape velocity to exit the well or fall into the well (equivalence principle.) So "deep" is the indentation of a black hole that light speed is not sufficient to escape it.
As the theory goes, dark energy would be the geometric opposite, space/time outdents causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. This would be seen as negative gravity.
Underlying this theory is the thought that gravity may be the weakest in magnitude and greatest in extent by comparison to the other fundamental forces (i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak atomic) because it is inter-dimensional.
The bottom line is that in general relativity as compared to special relativity, space/time is warped. But regardless of its structure, there was a beginning of real space and real time and therefore physical causality.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
The term "created world" is not broad enough to include the Creator of it.
It is for this reason I think Saint Justin Martyr was exactly right, when he said Christianity is the fulfillment/perfection of classical philosophy, just as it is the fulfullment/perfection of the law and the prophets of Israel. Evidently C. S. Lewis came to see "the overarching hand of God in not only the history of Christianity but other belief systems as well.... [A] a loving God has been working diligently to prepare each and every culture for the gospel of his son. In so doing, mythical stories have been given to anticipate or preconfigure a factual, historical outworking. Christianity is not only the fulfillment of Judaism, it is also the fulfillment of all other religious and philosophical systems." [Burson and Walls, p. 30]
Truly God is Almighty!
Your association of Plato's myth of the Cave, and St. Paul's observation that we "see through a glass, darkly," strikes me as spot-on, dear brother in Christ!
INDEED. AGREED.
Dear Dr. E, being a Calvinist, doesn't believe that we work out our salvation at all Quix. Perhaps you need to hash that out with her. :)
I mean, if God saves, what is there to "work out," Quix?
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.