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.
Not really, except when expressing an idealized mathematical (theoretical) quality such as flatness having an infinitely long radius of curvature, or just being "really flat" in common language! :)
Can I conceive of it? No. Can I spend hours talking about it? No.
Can you conceive what "no end" means?
No beginning and no end? Sure, a circle.
Do you ever wonder how one sperm bumping into one ovum results in a full-grown human being?
As part of my curriculum at some point in my life, yes.
Do you think there might be a color that hasn't been discovered yet? Can you picture it?
Yes and no. Human eye can see only a limited range of electromagnetic radiation as "color." An adaptive change in the human eye could make it possible for humans to see more colors.
There's [sic] plenty of things we can't conceive of and yet we still discuss them. That's part of the fun.
There is nothing you listed here that is inconceivable, or that violates physical world as we know it. But discussing (if we can call it that) the fullness of God who is a Spirit, being in Christ's physical body located somewhere, as well as in the burning Bush, or in the indwelling Spirit in everyone's heart, etc. all at the same time, age, space, location, is inconceivable.
So are taking donkeys and living in a belly of a fish for three days and surviving, so is the raising of the dead, and many other things we take 'for real' if not 'normal' in the Bible.
Then maybe you need to spend more time with them. The so-called "fruits" are well defined in the New Testament (another Pauline innovation), and while many Chritsians do show evidence of such "fruits" many don't.
But unless they are founded in the faith of Jesus Christ by the grace of God, those attributes are not fruits of the Spirit
That's because you choose to believe that. That has as much weight as me insisting pink unicorns live on Jupiter because I really, really believe that!
But there’s no evidence of pink unicorns on Jupiter, while I find evidence of God’s hand everywhere.
Well at least you realize that this is your preference (a man made limitation). A loving God is easier to love. :)
But there is no love in the universe or in the nature for that matter. We can daydream about it because we live in man-made bubbles where we enjoy man-made comfort and security and pretend that the deadly and cruel world around us is really "beautiful" and God infinitely loving, even obligated to be good.
Where?
About time some RC’s gave more fitting due to the proper aids for better understanding!
HARUMPH!
LOL.
That’s not my term.
I’ve always been weary & wary of that term.
I don’t think we can know that for certain at this point in time.
Certainly those who feel that way have a long list of plausible evidence on their side.
I just think that there are many organizations, nations, cities, groups, etc. which fit that bill to some degree.
As to which precisely that Scripture is referring to—I don’t know.
True, but I spent a lot of my life hating what I believed God is. It came easy to me.
But, hopefully we can distinguish between believing something because we wish it so and because it is true.
One definition of the subject of religion, William James' I think, is: Who we are and our relationship to the cosmos.
I believe that relationship is in connection and compassion. And, in consciousness;I think our consciousness can be seen as the cosmos looking at itself. I believe that what I call God is loving and compassionate. And that the cosmos is permeated with compassion, sometimes seen in how everything is part of something else which is part of something else... There's just one thing going on.
I believe this from personal experience, I believe it is as true as my experience of joy, beauty, sorrow, awe, and so on. A hateful God and a meaningless cosmos turned out to be an error in perceiving reality. It didn't fit observation and experimentation.
I know none of this is provable, nor is it possible to transmit it through description or some magic mind meld. But it's reality to me and it is how the world works. IMHO of course. YMMV.
My children.
My husband.
My health.
My home.
My peace of mind.
My hope for the future.
My cooking.
(Alright. Not my cooking.)
My parents.
My friends.
My country.
God’s hand is there in all of it. I know that is true because I also know I’ve done nothing to deserve any of it. It’s all by grace.
If there were a God, and since you discount the authority of Scripture, how would you propose He made Himself and His will known to us?
There is no reason to go beyond “Thy will be done” and leave the rest to God, whoever or whatever God may be.
Does that refusal to "go beyond" extend to worship, too? Are men supposed to worship this God, "whoever or whatever God may be?"
I asked if you could conceive of what no end means. You said sure, and then gave me an example of something else.
You said yes to my third question, qualifying it in some peculiar, disconnected way as "part of your curriculum." Does that mean you wouldn't have thought about it if it hadn't been homework?
You may or may not have considered other colors.
You spent time and effort correcting my typo of 's instead of 're. A thousand thanks. I can only assume how busy you must be.
There is nothing you listed here that is inconceivable, or that violates physical world as we know it.
Try considering infinity that is not a circle, but a vector extending into time and space. How does the physical world comprehend "no end?"
But discussing (if we can call it that) the fullness of God...
What would you call it?
But discussing (if we can call it that) the fullness of God who is a Spirit, being in Christ's physical body located somewhere, as well as in the burning Bush, or in the indwelling Spirit in everyone's heart, etc. all at the same time, age, space, location, is inconceivable.
No, it's not. I'm conceiving of it right now with my mind. And the good affects of that concept are tangible in my life. They're observable and repeatable.
The catechism is nothing more than proof texting and out of context usage.. now on who to ask??? I would have to call the pope himself because everything else is YOIOS seeing there is no OFFICIAL commentary, only the pope could give me the real meaning :)
Scripture interprets scripture . The infallible source interprets the infallible source
But we do not claim to be infallible interpreters and the sole authority .....
Alamo-Girl: "That doesn't compute.
~~~~~~~
Actually,A-G, it does "compute". God's dynamic universe is mostly empty space, so, at any time. the probability of the physical center point being occupied by a physical body is quite slim.
However, annalex, your obvious, persistent sarcastic, denigrating "Woop-tee-doo" attitude toward those of us who strive to understand and celebrate the majesty of God as revealed through His creative handiwork is getting quite irksome. It neither furthers your position as a debater nor does it reflect favorably on your witness as a Christian -- nor is it anything other than disrespectful of The One Who created all that is.
I can't speak for Alamo-Girl, but I, for one, resent your supercilious attitude toward aspects of my life's work following God's calling. If it continues, I will not curse you or call you "ill"; I will simply cease in my efforts to understand and communicate in fellowship with you.
Have I made my position clear?
Okay, then Protestant interpretation of the scriptures is no better than that made by the magisterium. Is that what you are tyring to say?
I can see that in less fortunate people. It's easy to love God when things are good. The fortunate and the unfortunate credit God with their condition with predictable flavor. The fortunate love God and thank him for their good fortune (which is in a way like saying "thank you for not making me like the guy next door"), and the unfortunate blame God for their misfortune and hate him for it.
Part of the problem is that Abrahamic religions tend to insist that those who don't fall in line with the "official truth" are "blind" and "deaf" and "damned" and that all they have to do is submit and accept and thank God for their misfortune and their lives will be transformed.
Oh no, they won't promise an amputee that God will grow for them another limb; or that the poor will strike gold. No. God will only make them feel "more better" about their missing limb or poverty, so they will feel good about being disadvantaged, even "happy"! At least they are better off than some other poor schmuck, even "blessed." And , the best part is: if they keep that attitude, and behave, the real rewards will come after they die.
But, hopefully we can distinguish between believing something because we wish it so and because it is true.
Good luck. Why do you think there are so many "true" religions in this world, and so many different "true" interpretations of the scriptures?
I think that is a fair definition, but not necessarily what religion is to most people. It's all about their fortune or misfortune here on earth, and fortune or misfortune in the "life everlasting." In other words, what's in it for me. Take out "salvation" as the "free gift" and see how many people come to God because he is great, and love him for his glory.
What was the winning argument of Christians over pagans if not their ability to convince them that Christianity offers resurrection and life everlasting associated with rich rewards in heaven? They didn't preach how great God is and worshiped him for his glory. They preached rewards, especially for the less fortunate, hopeless, disfigured, etc.
And since some (we really don't know how many) of these "witnesses" testified to the risen Christ, and were willing to die for that story, it became contagious. It was almost as good, if not better than Amway. :)
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.