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.
Here's that quote from Cyril, right?
CYRIL; We may hence understand the extent of our Savior's kingdom. For He says there are a hundred sheep, bringing to a perfect sum the number of rational creatures subject to Him. For the number hundred is perfect, being composed of ten decades. But out of these one has wandered, namely, the race of man which inhabits earth.
How dioes that contradict what I said. Either singly or collectively, the man is the lost sheep for which Christ comes. So how is that lost sheep not the center?
Thank you for saying it with such clarity.
Certainly. It's not magic. Plenty of Bible-knowledgeable Atheist. And the secondary kind, those that believe what others, Calvinists for example, tell them about God and see God as ridiculous, hateful, capricious, unjust...
Then there's the wacko cults. People can get all kinds of different theology from reading the Bible. They do it every day.
Given your previous post, what is it exactly that you think you disagree with me about?
Not that it matters much, but when I said “we all realize” I meant realize that we are not talking about any geometrical center. I am fully aware that with the possible exception of Betty you guys disagree about man being a semantical, so to say, center.
That it is, but what does it have to do with anything?
Let us say I want to build a house -- a palace -- for my son and I have an unmlimited resource. I will create a body of water for him, and a forest, mountains and fields, and then I will build the house. No matter where I start this project -- most likely, with the shaping of the mountains and the waters, and road building -- my son remains the center of the enterprise. If I have two sons, both are.
You are thinking that because a hole between the galaxies is some kind of a center, it is THE semantical center. It is not.
In other words, we are saved by faith and "perseverance", and not by faith alone.
Of course. The Church gave us the Bible, and the Church explains its meaning. Logical.
Nowhere in Scripture does God tell us a church magisterium will interpret Scripture for us.
The Church is the court of last instance for all disputes, nit just about the scripture. See Matthew 18:17-18. See also "how shall they preach unless they be sent" (Rom. 10:15), and "And how can I [understand the scripture], unless some man shew me?" Acts 8:31.
1 John 2:27
speaks of the fact that a comfirmed Catholic need no instruction from the unconfirmed, nor, of course, from the Antichrist. The "unction" here is the Catholic sacrament.
1 Corinthians 2:12-13
The "we" in that passage is St. Paul and the apostolic college, see the beginning of the chapter.
Nowhere does the Bible encourage the heretics to figure the scripture out for themselves. That is what the clergy is for, men "of God [...] perfect, furnished to every good work" (2 Tim, 3:17).
It is true though that if a theological opinion is not shared by the early Church, then it is not likely to be of value. Of course, it will also contradict the scripture in that case — although not possibly every interpretation of the scripture.
That's the way I see it...
The believe here is that Christ can heal the daughter of Jairus despite her apparent death. Note that this is a good prooftext for the intercession of the saints as well as for veneration of relics. But it does not prove Faith Alone.
"Should" is derived from shall which is synonymous with will, must, or ought.
What you describe is a coloquial understanding (i.e. may, can) which is grammatically incorrect.
"...he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever" (from the same passage, emphasis mine).
You can always ask. Also the Catechism is a good read.
“the apostolic college”? I don’t see that anywhere in my bible in 1 Cor. 2:12-13 OR the beginning of the chapter. We, the believers, are ALL called saints. You’re going to have to be more specific.
No it isn't. It's obvious in everyday life.
Fine. I will assume, then, that we are talking insanity and treat it accordingly. Thank you.
And how do individual Protestants interpret the scriptures?
Daily, in three languages, with patristic commentary. Why do you think I despise the Protestant heresies so much?
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.