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.
Yes and no.
You seem to do so fairly intensely quite well both directly and indirectly . . . evidently when the mood strikes you to do so.
And then dodge, obfuscate, rationalize, redefine and even blame as you do so exhaustingly with the intellectual cosmological exchanges.
Personally, That’s all fine with me. I like intense exchanges.
I don’t like hypocrisy about them.
BTW,
I expected that you’d not deal with the important content of the pulled post.
It appears that the habit is to keep silent on things too difficult to face squarely.
That is one definition but the singing of a bird can be called music also as can the sounds of a brook. so the concept can be difficult to define. The concept exists and definitions do not equal the concept but only attempt to put it into words.
For non-believers. Alms and charity and compassion for Muslims (see the five pillars of Islam). It is also merciless when it comes to some offenses just as Judaism used to be.
Christianity is the ONLY religion that teaches men to be kind
I don't think "do no harm" is exclusively Christian.
Do you know what accounts for a child's best hope for a happy, secure life as an adult? It is to know they are loved unconditionally, so that they learn to TRUST that love
Love is one of those "in the eyes of the beholder" categories, so I consider that statement a fleeting generalization. Many a happy and successful individual was raised on different kinds of love or even without love. What you are proposing is what is currently an acceptable social doctrine, not necessarily something carved in stone.
The trust of the child isn't much different than the trust of the adult
I disagree. Children are easily influenced and misled because they are naïve. They are a gold mine for control freaks.
To not be satisfied with love and met expectations is the definition of neurosis
Maybe in a Jungian sense but not in general.
Kosta: But does that make him real? If I believe in pink unicorns (or Santa for that matter) they are "real" to me, but does that make them real or just imaginary?
A-G:No thing and no one "makes" God real.
Alamo, you missed the easy spike on this one.
God makes everything else real.
(Genesis 1:1 and (after a fashion) Romans 4:17).
Cheers!
The singing of a bird or the "music" of a brook, or the sound of the waves breaking on a beach, etc. are sounds perceived as pleasing to human individuals, and again as such defined by human standards. No matter how you look at it, it always defaults to the humans as the source.
Only about Catholic and / or crevo threads.
Cheers!
But the words of God can only be spiritually discerned.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:14
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:35-40
You know, people keep forgetting that the stories of Jesus are *verbal* interactions.
Even a fresh text couldn't capture tone of voice, still less a document copied through multiple languages.
Isn't it possible that the intonation and inflection Jesus used indicated to the would-be stoners in John 8 where He was going with his phrase...?
Cheers!
Truly, Jesus was particularly harsh with the outwardly religious (Matt 23) for their hypocrisy.
I am satisfied with that.
No need for me to come in and put my foot in it at *all*. :-)
Cheers!
BTW, I also write a lot more than I actually post. For one thing, I try to reduce my own words as much as possible so someone might actually remember them. LOLOL! But more importantly, some posts require a lot of prayer.
Thank you so much for "taking us there" in your archeological "dig" and project!
And thank God for you, dear brother in Christ!
Well, our bodies do heal themselves. If we're healthy. If they didn't we'd break down as fast as cars.
They do. Ancients didn't live very long. Besides, when you say heal, those are band-aid first-aid repairs. No internal organs can be regrown except the liver and when it heals the new tissue is nonfunctional with the rest of the liver. Hardly a work of perfection.
Why do we have to die?
We don't. There is no reason whatsoever for a cell to die other than an enzyme. Aging and death is really a genetic "disease" which is potentially treatable. One can envision a day in the near future (not in my lifetime) when an injection of telomerase will prolong human life manifold if not indefinitely.
I am sure many will find this a verification of the "Fall" in the Garden of Eden. Sin brought a genetic change in our makeup and made us mortal, essentially changing us (and the whole planet) ontologically. Very possible that some external factors favored a (short-time) survival instead, or that, as you noted, lacking in natural enemies, we would have overpopulated the earth, so inactivation of telomerase was an adaptive change.
It is interesting that the OT speaks of earliest man living much longer than we do today, which is not supported by archeology or historical accounts. But it could be an atavistic memory in ancient peoples who "remember" that their ancestors may have lived longer.
We see evidence of adaptive change in areas where genetic mutation favors resistance to malaria, but also gives rise to a blood disorder common to blacks (sickle cell anemia) as an unwanted side effect. Kind of like natural curing addiction with addiction.
The way the world works, death is necessary for life
Procreation problems could have been naturally adjusted by adjusting reproductive periods and estrus duration, sharply reducing offspring numbers. Instead, nature favored killing to control population numbers (much more efficient).
Much of life feeds on dead matter. The rest of life eats life to live.
That doesn't strike me as an intelligent design but a reactive design. Our history on earth was pretty violent and death resulted from climactic changes and volcanic eruptions, and probably from lack of ability to adapt to geological and climactic changes.
For a changing world, many generations favor genetic adaptation. At some point radiation and other factors damage our cells leading to breakdown. So, all this seems to be adaptive. When longevity becomes an essential survival tool the body will turn on telomerase and prolong cell-life.
If we play God and do it, we will have an overpopulation problem sooner than we anticipated. And don't forget that the consumers are producing faster than producers. None of this points to divine design or even intellect at work. We have the means to live forever, but the conditions favor higher turnover.
Thanks for sharing your similar Biblical perspective.
K:I don't think the Pharisees were empiricists.
Hmmm, what becomes of John 6:49 - 6:52...?
("How can this man give us his flesh to eat?")
And a bit later in John 6:62, where Jesus says ""Does this seem incredible to you? What then if you were to see the Son of Man ascending again where He was before?"
Or of John 14:11 "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; but if not, believe me for the works' sake themselves."
Or for that matter, past the mere polemics, to action -- John 12:10-11 :
"So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus. "
Or during the crucifixion itself, Matthew 27:42:
"He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him."
And this kind of thing continues even after the resurrection, as evidenced in Acts 4:14-16 :
" When they saw the man who had been cured standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. So they ordered them to leave the council while they discussed the matter with one another. They said, "What will we do with them? For it is obvious to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable sign has been done through them; we cannot deny it."
And of course the writings of St. Paul, see 1 Cor 1:22 :
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom..."
The point being, they wanted, asked for, and were chided by Christ, with references to *evidence*.
Sounds like empiricists to me!
Cheers!
As much as I would like to, I don't know and cannot know your heart, your hopes, your concerns.
When I'm out walking my dog, each car that goes by reminds me that there is yet another person God loves and I love because He does and yet I do not know him. Each of them has a past, a present and a future - a heart, hopes and concerns - family, friends, associates, enemies - but it is all hidden from me.
All I can do - and do - is pray for them.
God's Name is I AM.
We don't have to, He came out and said so.
Matthew 5:17-20 and John 8:46.
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
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.