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.
Matthew 10:1-10, 28:16-20, similar in all the gospels.
In the beginning St. Paul speaks in the first person, then switches to "we", and yes, that is the "saints" that he was addressing.
Well then the “saints” would be all believers, not an apostolic college.
I just can't think of any way that I could be the "center" of anything. Except as a locus of God's love. But all His children are likewise. I have no claim of being anything special in this regard. That's all I was trying to say, dear annalex!
For one thing, by current estimates there are 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe.
I know one thing: when someone tells me he or she is only "visiting" this world but can't tell me where they are "visiting" from, I can only treat it as insanity.
I know one thing: when someone tells me he or she is only "visiting" this world but can't tell me where they are "visiting" from, I can only treat it as insanity.
So, he is not in any aprticular place if he is everywhere. Ergo he is not in the center of the universe.
I *think* the correct theology is God is immanent in the physical universe and transcendent. Present everywhere (”Where is God not?”), but more than that presence, not just this presence or the sum of these presences or fully located by this presence.
“No simple location” is be another way I’ve heard it put scientifically.
Is there an answer that can be discovered or is it a question on the order of “How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?”?
"Obviously the "fruits" of the HS are not evident in all believers."
I disagreed with that remark and asked how you knew your statement was true and you replied...
"It's obvious in everyday life."
How is it obvious?
1 John 2:19 is of course correct.
How could it be otherwise? lol
But the Scriptures DO speak of God having location, does it not?
You and I, we are from different worlds. The difference is, in your world I am insane. In my world you are welcome.
you: 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.
As I said back at the beginning of this sidebar, I am not the center of the universe - neither the physical universe nor 'all that there is.'
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.
I hope you won't mind me flagging a few saints to your completely preposterous remark. It's almost as ripe as your comment that you long for the days of the Inquisition to return.
First of all you are confusing two verses. I assume the "relic" you're putting your faith into refers to Christ's garment that the woman had just touched in hopes of being healed. But note that even here, it is her faith which saved her...
"Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole" -- Mark 5:34
Regarding the later verses, Christ is not talking about intercession or relics or dental x-rays. He's telling a man how to pray, and how to live.
Fearlessly, by the faith of Christ alone.
It's pretty sad that you look to worldly "relics" even as Jesus Christ is standing right there in the flesh performing miracles.
All idolatry is the same; it robs God of His glory and invests that glory into a material thing which can be traded and bartered and bought.
This is Rome. A merchant whose scale is faulty.
Certainly, his abode, the Ark, Holy of Holies, the Temple Cult, etc. is a good example, but there is also "Where is God not?" And there's also "Who art in Heaven"
I think I'd say that Immanent and Transcendent is a theological description.
Then being in a particular place He is not everywhere?
If I understand your question, He is everywhere, but more than that. You can see that if He were “just everywhere,” fully defined by that, then we could have a nature religion, or worship the (all) creation.
In the OT, we have Him appear as (in) a burning bush, pillar of fire, residing in the temple, etc.
So, theologically, we’d have to deal with those questions as well as the location of God.
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.