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.
But there is nothing compassionate about nature. Perhaps you need to look at some of the more graphic videos of animal life. Life for animals is hell. They are never safe, they can't control heat or drought, or heal their illness, or even know if they will eat and what they will eat. The way they are killed by other animals is gruesome, some of them become "meal" while they are still alive but too exhausted to run, etc. Then there are places like Culcutta (or whatever trhey call it now), Darfur, Rwanda, etc.
From the relative comfort of our homes, and out undeserved fortunes, it is easy to construct a compasisonate God, and sell him to the hopeless and the needy who are ready to grasp at anything. It's like dangling a sausage in fornt of a dog. Fear and fortune are two factors that loom prominent in these religions.
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 know, "compassionate cosmos" such as supernovae, and galactic catastrophes, or just a mile or two long asteroid headed our way at ten times the speed of a bullet. It's a compassionate Russian roulette. And if there are any surviviors, the privileged willbe sure ly among them more than the ordinary folks.
I believe this from personal experience
Don't we all?
I believe it is as true as my experience of joy, beauty, sorrow, awe, and so on
If our personal experience becomes the norm than that is the reality we create. We also know that our personal experience is not to be trusted, our memory is patently unreliable, and our psychic and emotional reactions are not ecessairly reflective of the reality around us.
It's an inner world in which we reign supreme, which we can choose as our abode, just as we can lock ourselves in our house and pretend the world doesn't exist.
Okay, what is a meaningful cosmos?
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.
I have no doubt about it being your reality. It's just not necessarily the reality for others who may be less fortunate, perhaps a mother in Darfur whose babies just got hacked to death in front of her, and who may not have any food for her remaining child, who doesn't know if that child will live another day, who has no access to medical care, or who has been raped repeatedly by marauding gangs of soldiers.
We choose what we want to see or don't want to see. It may be irrelevant if it is snowing and the temperature is hitting 20 below if we sit in our warm home, snug and grateful to a compassionate God. We can ignore the world, and even find "beauty" in the snow outside, and never think for a moment if there is someone shivering under a bridge with nothing to eat and nowhere safe to sleep.
I think most of my previous reply had theodicy thrown in there. My answer to your question is: I can imagine better, but I am not sure if is possible, never mind "necessary."
No misofrutnes? You don't thank God for any misfortunes? Are misfortunes a sign of a lacking grace?
you: 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?
Any way he saw fit.
No, I gave you an example of how "endless" is axiomatically used in math applied to real objects. It's a theoretical concept. Therefore we can conceive of it. It doesn't mean it's real.
Does that mean you wouldn't have thought about it if it hadn't been homework?
I could think about it all I want but for naught because I doubt that I would come up with sperm and ova in my mind. The ancients thought about it as "seeds" and "fertile ground" because that something they could relate to. But just because I would not have thought about it doesn't mean that sperm entering an ovum and two sets of haploid genetic material fusing into one is not inconceivable because it is actually observable.
You may or may not have considered other colors.
Human eye can see all hues from violet to red, corresponding to a specific wavelength range of electromagnetic radiation. Unless the eye mutated and acquired sensors for extended radiation range it cannot see more colors. But, yes, seeing more colors is conceivable.
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.
At that time I wasn't very busy, except answering your questions. A typo is when I spell "do snot" unsteady of "does not" but "There's and "There are" is not a typo.
Besides, I made it as subtle as possible and didn't make a big deal of it. It was just a friendly reminder. Bad habits tend to creep into our language unintentionally.
Try considering infinity that is not a circle, but a vector extending into time and space. How does the physical world comprehend "no end?"
By assuming it is a circle. A big circle. Outside of that analogy we can't. We can give it a mathematical symbol and definition but it doesn't mean it corresponds to physical reality. It only approximates it.
What would you call it?
An unknown.
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.
How do you know they are from God, that is—from the fullness of God? How are they repeatable?
annalex, I believe you were to be pinged to post 1517.
When annalex posited that the geometric center of the universe is most likely a "hole between the galaxies," I gathered he meant a wormhole and not the probability that the mathematical point would occur between galaxies.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. - I Cor 12:12-12
Ditto for conceiving of space/time being created as the universe expands. Or grasping the concepts of null v zero, infinite v finite, eternity v timelessness, form v no space, etc.
Thus rather than receiving the words of God in their full power as if a child, some I suspect filter God's words accepting them only to the extent they can rationalize them within whatever such perceptual limitations apply to them.
In effect, such a person can only accept a "god" that fits within his obviously limited ability to comprehend him. His "god" is a fabrication, an idol of his imagination.
That is unfortunate and can be spiritually perilous; we should recognize our own limitations when we meditate on Who God IS.
Man is not the measure of God.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
POWERFUL POST, Quix. AMEN!
“It’s pointless to talk about things we can’t conceive. Which is why I always go back to the basic what is God question, not just “where is God not?”. We have to know what we are talking about before we can talk about where something is.”
When we talk about something we are in fact forming some sort of conception of it or already have one, that frequently is the purpose of talking about something.
“It’s pointless to talk about things we can’t conceive. Which is why I always go back to the basic what is God question, not just “where is God not?”. We have to know what we are talking about before we can talk about where something is.”
When we talk about something we are in fact forming some sort of conception of it or already have one, that frequently is the purpose of talking about something.
What makes you think that list didn’t include misfortunes?
I say He has done just that; made Himself known to the people He has chosen to give eyes to see and ears to hear.
I'll take your word for it that you are not among them.
Because these "good affects" do not come from me. I know myself well enough to know I am not capable of creating such grace. As far as I can tell, the only reason for grace is God. I don't see anything else responsible for it.
And that grace is repeatable because when I get up in the morning, it's there again.
Freely.
And as far as your correction of my grammar, I'll remember your insistence that it was a benevolent act, and return the favor next time I see one of your many typographical/grammatical/clumsy finger errors.
Usually the improvements we imagine have negative consequences to the whole.
If, for example, you remove those exploding stars, there would be nothing past the basic elements, and no earth and no us. We're composed of the result of past violent massive explosions.
If we remove mutations that result in all manner of disease, we remove the engine of speciation and all the positive results of "good" mutation. If we remove pain, we remove key information for survival. If we remove the capacity for evil, we remove the capacity for good.
It's all a package deal, the way the world works; remove a piece and the whole doesn't work, we end up with chaotic nothing. Opposites are part of the whole, both are necessary for anything to come into existence.
Humans still have the option to opt out of the who system.
Still the default for humanity is compassion. While evil and lies and ugliness exist, goodness, truth and beauty are favored by the cosmos.
The alternative is random nothingness, I can imagine that. But it would not be the best of possible world, it would mean no world possible.
The message is the same, either way. And it is powerful!
Very true. The "believe and receive" brand comes to mind.
I don't think we would grow much if everything were good all the time. It's the tragedies and suffering that are the real catalysts for growth, if we use them.
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.