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.
lol. And you're proud of that???
It's always good to see our differences spelled out so clearly. The RCC ignores the Holy Spirit and usurps its role in God's salvation.
Nowhere in Scripture does God tell us a church magisterium will interpret Scripture for us.
Instead, God tells us the Holy Spirit will aid our understanding of Scripture which will be sufficient to bring us to a saving knowledge of the truth.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12-13"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." -- 1 John 2:27
When Roman Catholics finally begin to actually read their Bibles for themselves, God willing, they begin the journey from darkness to light.
I must be psychic. I knew that would be your response.
Do you know who the reprobate are? I don’t.
Does God give all men new eyes to see and new ears to hear and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind to know the things of God?
“Please do NOT attempt to read this on your own. Possible side effects may include salvation, freedom from the law, or rightly dividing the word of truth. If any of these side effects are noticed, please call your local church magisterium immediately.”
I'm thinking, in your view, "not those born reprobate".
Is that correct?
It is a common, understandable question when speaking of a merciful God in Calvinism.
I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing that “Church Father” mentality at work first hand.
One evening, during an intense after dinner discussion in my home, I reached for my (NJB) Bible to look up a particular scripture. (I know what’s in there, but do not have it all committed to memory.) I was startled and taken back a bit when my guest erupted from the other side of the table:
“Put that thing down! That book is not for you! The Church Fathers have read it for you - they tell you what it says!”
My guest was a well-read man of the Orthodox tradition, who was otherwise quite reasonable. On matters of faith, however, Dogma and Catechism trumped scripture and reason every time.
I am not going to suggest a cause and effect relationship, but the hour of his deathwas reminiscent of Young Goodman Brown - “...they carved no hopeful verse upon his tombstone; for his dying hour was gloom.”
Fascinating. But I would really like to know where you are "visiting" from. (that's what I did ask you, wasn't it?)
If I may be permitted an observation, dear brother, you seem to have quite a bit of excitement in your typing hand today
Well, my pay is the same. :)
Sid effects also include: Cultism, Blasphemy, Atheism and all manner of Heresy.
But you said you know from "the moment a person believes in Jesus Christ..."
So there is a possibility< that you don't know but only believe you you know? So your faith (at this moment) doesn't set you free, does it?
Christ corrects you.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
The RCC denies the Holy Spirit over and over.
John corrects you...
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. " -- 1 John 2:19
Read the Bible much?
The physical geometrical center of the universe is most likely just that, a hole between the galaxies. Woop-tee-doo.
[the universe] does not exist for our enjoyment but for His pleasure
One does not exclude the other. We are told to subdue it.
The fact is no one KNOWS how the Catholic church interprets scripture because their is no official INFALLIBLE Magisterium commentaries on the scriptures
Now this is a real pity because only the church can interpret scripture for the members ...so I guess they just do not want you to read it or at least know their interpretation, just in case they change their mind
You should. Iconography is the most direct expression of authentic Christian faith. You cannot say everything with it, but what it says, it says with power and precision.
“Should” in English is likewise a suggestion rather than imperative, even though colloqually people use “should” and “must” interchangeably, - right?
Oh, in that case I don't disagree at all that God is in some metaphorical way (I insert this caveat because He is truly outside of the Created world) the center. I was careful to say "center (again is a certain useful but not geometrical sense) of the Created world" all along and that excludes God from the consideration.
Where do you get that conclusion? It's not supported in Scripture.
Reading the Word of God can result in Atheism? I’ve found that the worst side effects are those cause by people who give their responsibility over to someone else to tell them what to believe, when to believe it and why. Ignorance is never a good excuse.
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.