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.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Kosta, but I have plenty of my own.
Of course we “work out our salvation.” We live it. We experience it. And yes, we work at it. Some days more than others.
But we do not win our salvation for ourselves. It is a gift freely given to us by a merciful God who has loved us from before the foundation of the world.
I should have added that your error is in conflating justification with sanctification.
Believers have been justified by Christ on the cross once for all time; our sanctification takes a life-time. The former has secured our salvation; the latter makes this known to us.
If he is an omnipresent, uncircumscribed transcendental Spirit then he is everywhere at all times all at once. How can he then be the center of the physical universe?
That's not "working" it out! That's living it out!
It is a gift freely given to us by a merciful God who has loved us from before the foundation of the world.
Then there is nothing to work out. It's a done deal.
Oh?
Believers have been justified by Christ on the cross once for all time; our sanctification takes a life-time. The former has secured our salvation; the latter makes this known to us.
Just as which point do you know you have been "saved?" At the end of your life or at the point of your "rebirth?"
Annalex, of the four of us in this small discussion group, I'll venture to say that you are the only one who "realizes" that.
Man -- especially individual man -- is not the "center" of anything -- except his own ego and that which he can sense with his barenaked sensory apparatus.
I'll go farther to predict that, if you explore this specific subject, ("man as the center") with the theological experts within your particular religious organization, you will find yourself in a very lonesome subset thereof...
Toward that end, when discussing with you, I will extend to you the courtesy of confining my Scripture references to those found at the "catecheticsonline" URL in your very own "FRTagLine".
I heartily recommend that you go there to
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Luke15.php, read the "Parable of the Lost Sheep", (Luke 15:1-7) AND, read the commentary by Cyril.
Meanwhile...
~~~~~~~~~~
Ladies, I suppose it is high time that I take the time out of this discussion (while coordinating my high priority archaeological project for 4th & 5th grade "G&T" kids) to "wrap words around" that graphic of mine on "centrism" and to present it here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Later, folks -- may your days be blessed... :-)
Because a man, to be a man, is centered in Him. And man is "in" the physical universe. The Bible says that the Creation was made for the benefit of the sons of God, for His pleasure. Of all created beings, man is specially consecrated to God, and central in His Love.
He is also the center in another way: The structure of universal causation is rooted in divine Will and Word, from the Beginning, to the End, and at every point in between. He is Alpha and Omega, First cause, Final cause, and the Immanent cause that relates the first to the last....
Just some thoughts, FWTW.
O.K, -- That, apparently, was a miscalculation on my part...
As for me, God is the center of my being; not the other way around...
~~~~~~~~~~
bb, we need to discuss this further...
What would you like to discuss, dear brother in Christ?
Just for the record, in no way do I believe that I am in any way, shape, or form the CENTER of anything in this universe. It's not "about me."
Rather, I see myself as centered, not in this world, but in God.... Not the center "of" God, but centered "in" Him.
I have to respectfully disagree with annalex's view.
you: If he is an omnipresent, uncircumscribed transcendental Spirit then he is everywhere at all times all at once. How can he then be the center of the physical universe?
Please read 1372 again.
The beginning ex nihilo is the center of the space/time continuum aka the "physical" universe.
God created that beginning ex nihilo - He is the first cause, the uncaused cause of space, time and therefore, physical causation.
Space and time are properties of the physical Creation - they are not properties of God the Creator.
God's Name is I AM.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Because he owuld be also everywhere else. So, yes, he would be in the ceneter of the universe, and everywhere else, but not exlcusively.
From the moment a person believes in Jesus Christ as Lord, King and Savior his salvation by Christ is made evident to him.
The only "test" of this fact is perseverance until the end of our lives.
If we don't persevere, then "true faith" was not in us.
If we persevere to the end, then our salvation is obvious to everyone else.
But a person knows his own heart enough to understand that Christ is either there or He is not there.
Faith isn't blind or unwavering, nor is it constant. We're imperfect beings, and so is our understanding. If we try to be perfect, we will always fail and that failure tends to deplete our resolve. Who wants to fail?
But God is merciful.
So rather than working for unattainable perfection, we should be working toward trusting God, loving Christ and following Scripture, confident that the Holy Spirit is our faithful guide.
The miracle of Christianity is not that God makes us perfect. The miracle is that He loves us in spite of the fact we are not.
Same difference.
The point is that if we have faith in Christ and we are being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, we will want to do the good works ordained for us from before the foundation of the world.
If not, we will only work for ourselves.
Didn't you leave out a pre-requisite "if": If we are not born a reprobate.
That's because Christ told us that faith in Him is the evidence of our salvation.
The rest of us can look at this man and judge him by the fruit he produces, whether it is evil or good. From this we can get a good idea whether or not he is a member of Christ's flock or a reprobate. "Ye shall know them by their fruit."
But since life is long and none of us knows when God might decide to turn a man's heart from sin to righteousness, we preach the Gospel of Christ to all men, confident that if God has numbered a man as His child, that man, at a time and occasion of God's choosing, will hear the Gospel and believe in Christ to the saving of His soul.
All in all, a wonderful, merciful plan for creation, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world, for His glory and the welfare of His saints.
Excepting those born reprobates of course.
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.