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.
At times, "venting" into the off-line editor represents a much-need catharsis; consequently, releasing my ire online occurs (I pray) with considerably less frequency. Frankly, a considerable amount of what I compose never gets published; last night, I "dumped" over a dozen unfinished and un-posted HTML editor texts. '-}
This morning, I was in a rush to head out for historic Jefferson, Texas, to select the exact "dig" site and lay out the archaeological grid for next week's "Summer Science Camp" "dig" for 'Gifted and Talented' 4th and 5th grade school kids.
For nearly thirty years in the 1800s, Jefferson ('way up on the frontier in the Piney Woods of northeast Texas) was Texas' second (only to Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico) largest and most important shipping port. It has changed little since then, and today is called "Bourbon Street on the Bayou" because much of its architecture and culture came from New Orleans, with which it had direct riverboat trade connections. If you are interested, there is a graphic (from my upcoming "orientation" lecture) that shows an annotated 1872 "Birds-Eye View" of Jefferson at
http://www.microlith.com/AeSDig/MiniJeffersonDigSite1872.jpg
Should you want a larger, higher resolution version, one is available at
http://www.microlith.com/AeSDig/JeffersonDigSite1872.jpg
In addition to showing the town's unique "V-shaped" two-stage development and layout, the view shows riverboat traffic on Big Cypress Bayou (including the dredge boat used for maintaining the channel and turning basin). Added are overlays highlighting the block where the dig will be, and an inset showing structures that were there in 1872 -- including the well-preserved "House of the Seasons", now serving as a museum & B&B. The green area was recently cleared of 1950s houses to be replaced by formal gardens, and the white rectangle marks the "trash dump" (with loads of "goodies") where the kids will be excavating.
~~~~~~~~~
Beyond being an excuse for sharing ;-) several of my avocational passions, (archaeology. teaching, and historic cartography) this post is also an apology for allowing time pressure to spur me into publishing in-forum (in #1517) thoughts that would better have been shared privately via FReepMail.
~~~~~~~~~
My prayer is that our interactions here in the FR religion forum will grow into mature fellowhip and sharing of insights through which God can open our eyes, minds and souls into a grander appreciation of Him, His creation, and our Lord's unspeakable gifts of sacrific and salvation!
Apparently, FR is being slow in returning confirmation that “Posts” have been accepted. Patience is advised for those who don’t want to be “double-posters” — as I just was... ;-}
You asked me if I could imagine and I said yes, but not sure if possible. I can design a perfect optical system that cannot be made for practical reasons.
God doesn't have those limitations. Why design a uvula? Or an appendix, or a crossed respiratory and alimentary tract?
Why not design self-healing bodies? Bodies that grow severed limbs the way we grow hair and nails, or the way a lizard grows back his tail? Why not be able to replace bad eyes with new ones, etc?
If we remove the capacity for evil, we remove the capacity for good.
I disagree. Good is absence of evil.
Still the default for humanity is compassion
Compassion is not natural to man. It is learned. What we consider a "human being" is a learned set of values, not an innate characteristic of our animal nature. In other words, it is not our default.
Leave a child in the back yard with only food and water The child will grow up without manners, without a language,with no reading ability, no mathematical skills.
That child will revert to being an animal in no time. In the case of a nuclear or asteroid catastrophe, survived only by 10-year olds or younger, practically all human knowledge will be lost, all knowledge of history, science or any academic field, or anything we consider part of human civilization, would be lost. We would revert to being practically cave men in no time at all.
There is nothing noble about us other than what we have learned. You could say we were domesticated.
The alternative is random nothingness
I don't understand what that means. What is nothingness?
Then the life everlasting is a dismal prospect of eternal stagnation.
Thank you SFA. Some on this Forum seem to have an uncontested right of passage to make acidic personal assualts to their hearts' desire. They can post personal acidic attacks (#1429, #1537) in large letters, vibrant colors and explicit personal context and the Religion Moderator will say nothing. Frankly, I don't even bother with the RM any more precisely for that reason.
Clearly, the purpose of such acidic personal attacks is to make them about another FReeper, to inflame, provoke, bait, etc. I will not diginify such gutter material with a reply no matter what size font or color they use.
Thank you, again, for caring.
Based on what?
I hope we get to meet sometime -- now or hereafter...
I treasure folks who can laugh at themselves!!
When we Reformers make decisions we experience full freedom to make them and it is very real to us. It is the same experience for free will advocates (as I used to be one). Reformers, though, recognize the bigger picture
I read this as you have free will, you experience free will, but your religious views limit what you perceive as free will more than those who don't share them.
IMHO, the only difference is one of theology, i.e., it comes into play on, as you say, the bigger picture, but not in everyday practice.
I have my problems with the theology, but I believe you have explained that in practice it's indistinguishable from other's "free will."
As always, thanks for your courteous and well-considered reply.
Why not design self-healing bodies?
Well, our bodies do heal themselves. If we're healthy. If they didn't we'd break down as fast as cars.
But I think the question can apply on a larger scale of death. Why do we have to die?
The way the world works, death is necessary for life. The living die to make room for the new born. Much of life feeds on dead matter. The rest of life eats life to live.
It's all part of a whole. A pretty incredible whole that has to work, and it works to grow life - where conditions are favorable. Any improvement we can imagine has to avoid unintended consequences.
If we discovered a means to live forever tomorrow, imagine the consequences.
I appreciate your reply and discussion very much.
They can be described by chemical and mathematical terms, demonstrated experimentally and isolated. None of them require faith.
The saints are all who are in heaven, but not all believers because we are not saved by our beliofs only. It is true that there are far more saints in heaven that just the Holy Apostles. Among the saints are all the canonized saints of authentic Churches, as well as countless men and women who are saved but the Church did not canonize them.
The Church only canonizes those who develop substantial veneration among the faithful and manifest themselves through provable miracles.
Don-o you will only incur wrath for this. We could speculate, I suppose, but it's not worth. All they wnat is to flame, provoke and get somone banned. Since the the powers to be will do nothing it seems, it's best we just ingore it.
You make it sound like it is a minor thing.
You keep teaching astrophysics to me.
It is correct. We are judged by our works that conform to God's will. This is why "faith alone" is counterscriptural nonsense.
You still are the center of the physical universe in a certain mystical sense, but not in the geometrical sense.
And, it's a shame; because, just in the short time I have been back in here, I have re-encountered some good old FRiends and begun to make some new ones. And seen some actual civilized exchanges...
see also: Acts 9:32, 41: 26:10, Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:10; Jude 3; Rev. 5:8, 13:7, 10; and 17:6.
ALL SAVED men are saints.
The Holy Inquisition has not been abolished, thanks be to God, but of course it is long past overdue in America, given the state of our clergy.
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.
Correct, and indeed, like any veneration of relics, that act was driven by faith in Jesus Christ. However, Jesus did not say that faith alone saved the woman, -- rather, her faith based on which she venerated His garment. Faith was what we do, not what we think. Such faith indeed saves.
Christ is not talking about intercession [...] He's telling a man how to pray, and how to live
Absolutely. The intercession is simply what happened: one man praying to Christ for another's benefit. And we should live by faith as we strive for fortitude. Mark 5:36 is a wonderful, succint, verse. All virtues start with simple faith. That is Catholic teaching. Compare Hebrews 11. "By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice ...".
Based upon may things, experience, ours or others, evidence, being human.
What is our concept of music versus just sounds based upon and how does a person explain what music is, for example.
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.
