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.
Great. Just great. We've been arguing with Pangloss.
Cheers!
Bullsh*t.
Chemical formulae don't due justice to Smetana's The Moldau or (for that matter) to my wife's legs.
Poetry is required.
And with poetry, the heart.
With the heart, gratitude towards the Maker.
Nice try, though.
Like, wow, dude.
I didn't know Journolist was around back then...
Cheers!
I liken our abilities to riding a bicycle on a train.
We’re peddling and we’re moving through time and space. We’re exerting effort.
But God is the conductor driving the train and we go where he takes us.
Where did I say anything disrespectful about anoyone's work? You are quite correct that the work to understand and celebrate nature is noble calling. Just do not put the center of it in a hole. Geometrically, it may be there. Mystically, not at all. Do you understand the difference?
In order to be more like God, in Whom simplicity and majesty coincide.
The childlike faith that Christ praised is not the same as superstitious belief in one's pastor's interpretation of scripture. That is, indeed, allowing men to control you.
Usually, it takes milliseconds for the server to receive the post. The time delay or even a hang that occurs after you hit Post is usually the time required for the server to send you the modified thread back and for your browser to receive it in sufficient measure to start displaying it (it arrives in parts).
If in doubt whether your post has been received, open another browser and see if it is there. Very often the other session oe browser will be faster than the one still waiting for the response after Post.
I don’t remember a single time when my post that appeared hanging was not already there, unless of course, I lost the connection completely even before posting.
Isn't it what I said in 1591? "The saints are all who are in heaven, but not all believers because we are not saved by our beliofs only".
Is His own death and resurrection for your sins thus minor?
Yes, that is there as well, and bmy bet is, that limitation is put there by God for a reason.
But I was talking about the fact that you with all these limitation had God come and save you. This makes you mystically the center of the created world.
LOL!!! GMTA!
(Dear Sisters, you are going to love grey_whiskerss' comment #1680!)
~~~~~~~~~~
I would reverse the order -- but we are in basic agreement.
In fact, if you check out this graphic <FreepMail with private URL headed your way> , you will see that I have put quite a bit of thought into the concept of "centrism" -- of various "flavors" -- being at the root of many divergent, polarized religious positions.
[You have been given access to a ""Privileged Draft" of a work-in-process. Please do not share it with anyone else!]
The graphic is the penultimate layer in a a PowerPoint-like 'progressive-build slide' "stack" that begins with the tiny foetus in its circular "womb" -- floating alone in a featureless, black 'universe'. Next, primitive self-awareness ["i am" (lower case)] appears, and the development builds outward from there.
At this penultimate stage, (as shown here) our Creator/I AM appears as a blue background, and in the final view, His presence is extended to cover the entire field -- with all the "centrisms" only dimly visible thru the (slightly transparent) deep blue "omnipresnce" of "I AM."...
When I'm fully satisfied with it, I may convert it to a "QuickTime" movie. Who knows -- it and others that I have shared with bb & A-G may wind up as elements in a longer movie (embryonic title, "is Your God Big Enough?") -- possibly exported in YouTube format...
Right now, before "unveiling" it in ongoing discussions here, I'm still working on "wrapping words (narration) around it"...
~~~~~~~~~
Ladies, I consider myself to be an iconoclast, but, here I sit -- 'creating' my own version of "modern iconography"... What fun!!!
Being child like can have both good and bad connotations.
Intended to include you two in the addresee list for #1692...
I think the point is a child sees things directly, without filtering reality through a whole ton of preconceived notions, and trying to adjust his "reality" to fit their terms.
Just 'cause I think it's interesting: What sounds good, harmony, are (small) even number divisions of the wavelength/frequency. At first man liked, or considered harmony as 1/1 division, then added octaves, 1/2 ratios, the 1/3, 1/4. As we get to modern jazz, what is considered harmony goes much further out - but this sounds discordant to many.
This relationship of math rations and beauty is part of what fascinated Pythagorus, the music of the sphere folks, etc.
That's trivial.
From John Donne's Batter My Heart, Three-Personed God:
I, like an usurpt towne, to'another due,
Labour to'admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weake or untrue.
We must be "born again" and "become like a little child" precisely *because* our faculties have become corrupted: and we must needs re-grow into a proper relationship with God.
Whether this will lead to felix culpa in time, then eternity; and the surface conflict between Romans 3:8 and Romans 8:28 is another matter: hint, the difference is "let *us* do evil" vs. "GOD works all things" -- the primary agent is different in either case; and one is looking at time as we experience it, the other from the lens of eternity...
Cheers!
Yep, and to remove the ego, to see what is and be aware.
Alex: In order to be more like God, in Whom simplicity and majesty coincide
Yes, good answer, but this is how the Church sees it, where child-like is another way of saying pure which would certainly be God-like.
Notice, I asked the Protestant crowd, rather then the Church crowd, for that interpretation knowing they don't see children as "pure" but as destined to hell from the moment of their conception.(Funny, Christ thought they were fit for heaven!)
Protestants, by necessity, see being chil-like as naïve, not pure; gullible. Their faith is based entirely on a book that reads like magic, and some even refer to God as their (big) "Daddy."
What becomes then of Job 38:7, or even the medieval "music of the spheres" ...?
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.