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.
PTL.
I just pray God can use it redemptively in a lot of lives.
Particularly one.
INDEED.
lol. Amen!
Something to think about before posting personal acidic assaults...
BLESSED ARE THE MEEK (Mt. 5:4)
Written by Father Paul A. Duffner, O.P
“It saves one from answering back quickly with wounding words, that afterwards one wishes had never been said. In a word, it enables one to endure affronts and injuries in a spirit of mildness dictated by reason enlightened by faith. In all such situations it drives the thought and inclination to revenge out of one’s mind and heart, thereby removing a key obstacle to the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul. “Do nothing to sadden the Holy Spirit with whom you were sealed against the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, all passion and anger, harsh words, slander, and malice of every kind” (Eph. 4:30).”
We all should think about this,including myself,since we don’t know where another persons heart or journey is!
Why would God create a rational being, in his image and likeness only to demand of him to become like a naïve child?
>i>In effect, such a person [i.e. the one who rationalizes God and refuses to be a child] 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.
But a child-like person accept everything dished out at him by men who wrote the scriptures, right? How's that different than finding gifts under the Christmas tree and being told that Santa really did come through the chimney (even if you don't have one!) to leave the gifts and you believe it?
Now, if I wanted to control a whole bunch of people the first thing I would do is make sure they believe everything I say, just like children. Conveniently.
I agree, which is why I treat all discussions about God as about a man-made deity, an idol, if you will.
Just making sure. Did it?
A lot of truth is in your post on humility.
However, one’s assumptions therefrom can go more than a little askew.
Certainly the Biblical exhortations are wonderful and true.
Too often humility and graciousness are equated with
wimpy passive softness, gentleness at all costs on all occasions in every context.
I disagree with those assumptions.
People often assume that becoming MORE LIKE JESUS
means becoming MORE MEEK, MILD, PASSIVE—OR AT LEAST NEVER VERY ASSERTIVE, GENTLE-AT-AT-ALL-COSTS, etc. etc.
However, MY JESUS IS ALSO
THE LION OF JUDAH.
Our vocabularies are limited in their ability to describe that which we cannot put our hands on, a colour already being mentioned, the scent of a flower or what an electron actually is.
All exist whatever our limited ability to fully describe them.
There’s also implicit in your post the
‘requirement’
to be gentle-at-all-costs
because the other person may be
traumatized by being beaten by his/her spouse; just lost his job, dog or Mercedes; be choking with every cigarette afflicted breath; have been shredded unjustly by co-workers or in-laws, the highway patrol or tax accountant etc. etc. etc.
True enough we don’t know where other individuals precisely are in their hearts, minds, emotions, relationships etc.
However, on the open forum, the standard is . . .
if you can’t handle the heat—get out of the kitchen.
And one category of those one Scripture talks about being flushed by God along with homosexuals etc. are the . . .
cowards.
There is also obvious grandstanding with letters that scream out "look at me" everyone which completely lacks humility and is sinful
How so?
Agreed.However,there is more.
From Father Paul A. Duffner...
Consequently, while anger when aroused in fallen nature is most often blameworthy, we see that it can be praiseworthy and just, when meekness directs it according to the dictates of justice and charity. We are speaking of anger that tries to destroy sin, without wishing to destroy the sinner. "Be angry and sin not" (Eph. 4:26; Ps. 4:5). Even in just anger, however, one must be careful not to sin by excess. St. Bernard reminds us that there are two extremes one must avoid in this matter: "It is a sin not to be angry when one should be angry; but to be angry more than is necessary is equally sinful." Fr. Walter Farrell, O.P. speaks in similar language: "There are times when our failure to be angry is a weakness, when we hold back the punishment because our love is not strong enough to be just." (Comp. to Summa, p. 457).
This must be the answer to my question to you.
St. Bernard
Fr. Walter Farrell, O.P.
And this.
FROM: BRENNAN MANNING'S
Excerpt from pp123-130
. . .
Imposters in the Spirit always prefer appearances to reality. Rationalization begins with a look in the mirror. We don't like the sight of ourselves as we really are, so we try cosmetics, makeup, the right light, and the proper accessories to develop an acceptable image of ourselves. We rely on the stylish disguise that has made us look good or at least look away from our true self. Self-deception mortgages our sinfulness and prevents us from seeing ourselves as we really are--ragamuffins.
One of my inelible memories goes back to April 1975 when I was a patient at an alcoholic rehabilitation center in a small town north of Minneapolis. The setting was a large, split-level recreation room on the brown of a hill overlooking an artificial lake. Twenty-five chemically dependent men were assembled. Our leader was a trained counselor, skilled therapist, and senior member of the staf. His name was Sean Murphy-O'Connor, though he normally announced his arrival with the statement: "It's himself. Let's get to work."
Sean directed a patient named Max to sit on "the hot seat" in the center of the U-shaped group. A small, diminutive man, Max was a nominal Christian, married with five children, owner and president of his company, wealthy, affable, and giftwed with remarkable poise.
"How long have you been drinking like a pig, Max?" Murphy-O'Connor had begun the interrogation.
Max winced, "That's quite unfair."
"We shall see. I want to get into your drinking history. How much booze per day?"
Max relit his corncob pipe. "I have two Marrys with the men before lunch and twin Martins after the office closes at five. Then . . . "
. . .
. . .
. . .
A total of eight drinks a day, Max?" Murphy-O'Conner inquired.
"Absolutely right. Not a drop more, not a drop less."
"You're a liar!"
Unruffled, Max replied: "I'll pretend I didn't hear that. I have been in business for twenty-odd years and built my reputation on veracity not mendacity. People know my word is my bond."
"Ever hide a bottle in your house?" asked Benjamin, a Navajo Indian from New Mexico.
"Don't be ridiculous. I've got a bar in my living room as big as a horse's . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . The interrogation continued for another twenty minutes. Max fudged and hedged, minimized, rationalized, and justified his drinking pattern. Finally, hemmed in by relentless cross-examination, he admitted he kept a bottle of vodka in the nightstand, a bottle of gin in the suitcase for travel purposes, and another in his bathroom cabinet for medicinal purposes, and three more at the office for entertaining clients. He squirmed occasionally but never lost his veneer of confidence.
. . . "Gentlemen, I guess we have all gilded the lily once or twice in our lives," was the way he put it, implying that only men of large mien can afford the luxury of self-depreicating humor.
"You're a liar!" another voice boomed.
"No need to get vindictive, Charlie," Max shot back.
. . .
"Get me a phone," said Murphy-O'Connor.
. . .
. . . Murphy . . . dialed a number in a distant city. It was Max's hometown. Our receiver was rigged electronically so that the party dialed could be heard loud and clear throughout the living room on the lake.
"Hank Shea?"
"Yeah, who's this?"
"My name is Sean Murphy-O'Connor. I'm a counselor at an alcohol and drug rehabilitation center in the MIdwest. Do you remember a customer named Max? (Paus) Good. With his family's permission I am researching his drinking history. You tend bar in that tavern every afternoon, so I am wondering if you could tell me approximately how much Max drinks each day?"
. . .
"I have a signed affidavit. Shoot."
"He's a helluva guy. I really like him. He drops thirty bucks in here every afternoon. Max has his standard six martinis, buys a few drinks and always leaves me a fin. Good man."
Max leapt to his feet. Raising his right hand defiantly, he unleashed a stream of profanity worthy of a stevedore. He attacked Murphy-O'Connor's ancestry, impunged Charlie's legitimacy and the whole unit's integrity. He clawed at the sofa and spat on the rug.
Then, in an incredible coup de main he immediately regained his composure . . .
"Have you ever been unkind to one of your kids?" Fred asked.
"Glad you brought that up, Fred. I have a fantastic rapport with my four boys . . . Two of my sons graduated from Harvard . . . "
"I didn't ask you that. AT least once in his life every father has been unkind to one of his kids. I'm sixty-two years old and I can vouch for it. Now give us one specific example."
A long pause ensued. Finally, "Well, I was a little thoughtless with my nine-year-old daughter last Christmas Eve."
"What happened?" "I don't remember. I just get this heavy feeling whenever I think about it."
"Where did it happen? What were the circumstances?"
"Wait one minute!" Max's voice rose in anger. "I told you I don't remember. Just can't shake this bad feeling."
Unobtrusively, Murphy-O'Connor dilaed Max's home town once more and spoke with his wife.
"Sean Murphy-O'Connonr calling, ma'am. We are in the middle of a group therapy session, and your husband just told us that he was unkind to your daughter last Christmas Eve. Can you give me the details, please?"
A soft voice filled the room. "Yes, I can tell you the whole thing. It seems like it just happened yesterday. Our daughter Debbie wanted a pair of earth shoes for her Christmas present.
On the afternoon of December 24, my husband drove her downtown, gave her sixty dollars, and told her to buy the best pair of shoes in the store. That is exactly what she did.
When she climbed back into the pickup truck her father was driving, she kissed him on the cheek and told him he was the best daddy in the whole world. Max was preeening himself like a peacock and decided to celebrate on the way home.
He stopped at the Cork 'n' Bottle--that's a tavern a few miles from our house--and told Debbie he would be right out. It was a clear and extremely cold day, about twelve degrees above zero, so Max left the motor running and locked both doors from the outside so no one could get in. It was a little after three in the afternoon and . . . "
Silence.
"Yes?"
The sound of heavy breathing crossed the recreation room. Her voice grew faint. She was crying. "My husband met some old Army buddies in the tavern. Swept up in the euphoria over the reunion, he lost track of time, purpose, and everything else. He came out of the Cork 'n' bottle at midnight. He was drunk.
The motor had stopped running and the car windows were frozen shut. Debbie was badly frostbitten on both ears and on her fingers. When we got her to the hospital, the doctors had to operate. They amputated the thumb and forefinger on her right hand. She will be deaf for the rest of her life."
Max appeared to be having a coronary. He struggled to his feet making jerky, uncoordinated movements. His glasses flew to the right and his pipe to the left. He collapsed on all fours and sobbed hysterically.
Murphy-O'Connor stood up and said softly, "Let's split."
Twenty-four recovering alcoholics and addicts climbed the eight-step stairwell. We turned left, gathered along the railing of the upper split level and looked down. No man will ever forget what he saw that day, the twenty-fourth of April at exactly high noon.
Max was still in the doggie position. His sobs had soared to shrieks. Murphy-O'Connor approached him, pressed his foot against Max's rib cage and pushed. Max rolled over on his back.
"You unspeakable slime," Murphy-O'Connor roared. "There's the door on your right and the window on your left. Take whichever is fastest. Get out of here before I throw up. I am not running a rehab for liars."
The philosophy of tough love is based on the conviction that no effective recovery can be initiated until a man admits that he is powerless over alcohol and that his life has become unmanageable. The alternative to confronting the truth is always some form of self-destruction [Qx emphasis]. For Max there were three options: eventual insanity, premature death, or sobriety.
In order to free the captive, one must name the captivity. Max's denial had to be identified through merciless interaction with his peers. His self-deception had to be unmasked in its absurdity.
Later that same day Max pleaded for and obtained permission to continue treatment. He proceeded to undergo the most striking personality change I have ever witnessed. He got honest and became more open, sincere, vulnerable, and affectionate than any man in the group. Tough love had made him real and the truth had set him free.
. . .
The rest of the chapter is also moving. I encourage folks to read the book if they have not:
A year of my PhD training was running groups at an alcohol center somewhat similar with an AA person a co-leader. Our classic case was the fellow court-ordered into our program on his 8th or 9th DWI/DUI arrest. At least one of the other incidents/arrests had involved hospitalizing a mother and children. Another had caused him to have serious medical problems. The first words out of his mouth in our group are:
"I don't need to be here. I don't have an alcohol problem."
Sometimes the truth is VERY DIFFICULT to arrive at--particularly with addictions--whether that addiction is to a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, A FANTASY, AN IDEAL, A LIE, A DREAM, A JOB, A REFERENCE GROUP, AN "IN-GROUP," A BOTTLE AND/OR A DOGMA.
Jesus did not come to earth to GIVE US RELIGION . . . and certainly not an addiction to a human institution whether RC or Proddy. He came to give us THE FATHER AND US TO THE FATHER, WASHED IN HIS BLOOD . . . HIS BLOOD ALONE.
Denial of those truths does not change THE TRUTH.
I've been a gunner for denial a long time. I play for keeps.
Results are Holy Spirit's business. I just do what I can, by His Grace. By His Grace, I pray He continues to give me grace, energy and consciousness to continue.
I think
there’s great grounds
to ask for a refund from the
mind-reading/ heart-reading/ motive-reading/ attitude-reading
school.
I guess they should have called for the paddy-wagon, yes?
Great words.
Evidently the definitions of the words are not in the
Vatican rubbery dictionary.
At the Cork ‘n’ Bottle?
while the daughter was freezing?
of when?
Can anyone explain to me how this post falls within the rules of not only the RF, but of FR as a whole, against personal attack?
Anyone at all? I am honestly uncertain on what it takes to rise to “personal attack.”
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.