Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[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.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Do I really have to answer this, annalex?......

All saved men who are on earth, right now, walking, talking, breathing, are referred to as SAINTS. Also those SAVED men who no longer walk among us..

Did you read the scriptures I gave you, or did you just post this without bothering?

[count-your-change]

“Their faith is based entirely on a book that reads like magic, and some even refer to God as their (big) “Daddy.”

A profound lack of understanding of what you accuse but nothing new there. In evidence is your comment about what Christ said of children.

Ho Hum....what cannot be understood must be ridiculed.

[grey_whiskers]

Indeed, without that elegance we'd be hard pressed to understand the physical Creation at all.

Indeed. As Murray Gell-Mann (PhD from MIT in theoretical physics at age 22 or so, Nobel Prize in physics in 1969) wrote:

What is especially striking and remarkable is that in fundamental physics a beautiful or elegant theory is more likely to be right than a theory that is inelegant."

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

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."

So do Catholics, and (presumably) Eastern Orthodox, all on the authority of Christ.

What do you think the Pater Noster is, anyway?

Cheers!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Protestants, by necessity, see being chil-like [sic] as naïve, not pure; gullible.

Children are not particularly "pure." All men are fallen.

A child's unconditional trust is what we are to emulate. We come to Him "as children," aware of our complete dependency on Him.

That's not naive or gullible. That's knowing whom we believe, and that we are not God, but His creation.

Their faith is based entirely on a book

That book contains the truth of the prophets and the words of God. Do you criticize the Jews for that same reason?

[Alamo-Girl]

me: Compared to God, everything is minor.

you: Is His own death and resurrection for your sins thus minor?

That God is timeless is revealed in His Name I AM.

Lamb of God is also His Name, timelessly.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Revelation 13:8

The operative part is His Blood not that I in particular am one of those covered by His Blood.

And again, only God is on the throne,

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:6

And again, His Blood makes peace so that all of heaven and earth are reconciled by and to Him.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

The creature is reconciled to the Creator. It's about Him, not me.

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[kosta50]

True but all our organs are continually being replaced with new cells, and when injured, they heal.

Not heart cells, not brain cells. You can't regrow limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, etc. These organs are formed during cell differentiation (organogensis) by stem cells.

Some organs, such as bones, skin, hair, blood vessels, etc. can repair and even enlarge, as needed, but these are maintenance and band-aid repair corrections.

This means cataclysm for the species involved, with man it would be approaching Armageddon

I wouldn't call it that. It happens in the universe all the time, just different places and times. We could just as easily cause it ourselves with a nuclear war. Species don't matter. Life is consequential to conditions.

This world existed long before we did, and so did many species. We see species appear and disappear in front of our eyes without cataclysms,

.

Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) an extinct carnivorous marsupial found in Australia until the 1930s [Wikipedia]

and something else fills the void to maintain the balance. The creation is not about us, for us or by us. We only believe it is. The world would not end if humans disappeared. Just us and our man-made things. We are not as big or important as we think we are.

[Alamo-Girl]

Very well said. Thank you for sharing that, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragement, dear sister in Christ!

[D-fendr]

We could just as easily cause it ourselves with a nuclear war.

I'd put that in the Armageddon category. We were talking about massive over-population and the resulting "adjustment." This usually means a massive die-off.

Species don't matter.

They matter to themselves of course, and the mix and numbers of species matter to the perpetuation of life.

Life is consequential to conditions.

As far as we know from our experience: Where matter is favorable, life emerges, where life is favorable, intelligence emerges, where intelligence is favorable, consciousness emerges.

Yes in consequence to conditions, but everything interrelated to the whole, and, in our experience, that includes living things.

It's not difficult to imagine nothing at all exists, or even a soup of particles and forces becoming nothing more.

[TXnMA]

"Ho Hum....what cannot be understood must be ridiculed."

There seems to a fair bit of that going on on this thread...

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree with you that God gave us these limitations of sight/mind for His good purpose.

Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. — Einstein

As Scripture says:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. - Romans 8:28

I really wish you would not use the word "center" - it doesn't communicate the point you're evidently trying to make about grace, intention, purpose or final cause. The word grates me in the Spirit and brings to mind many Scriptures concerning humility and pride.

God's Name is I AM.

[D-fendr]

>>>>”Not heart cells, not brain cells.”

I believe that’s no longer true:

http://www.livescience.com/health/090402-heart-cells.html

[count-your-change]

Ridicule like hot sauce, has its place but too much ruins the taste of everything else. Of course it also hides a fair bit of ignorance too.

[Alamo-Girl]

I am very excited about your graph especially now that you are considering adding narrative and automating it!

And I feel like I'm cheating here because I am privy to the chart, so I'll say no more about it except to thank you, dear brother in Christ, for all of your insights!

[kosta50]

Children are not particularly "pure." All men are fallen.

Jesus thought they were fit for heaven.

A child's unconditional trust is what we are to emulate.

Where does it say that?

What you call trust is children's naïvete. They can be easily persuaded, misled, fooled. I doubt Christ thought that was their redeeming feature. The Beatitudes seem to suggest very strongly he didn't.

That's knowing whom we believe...

Children believe strangers because they are naïve and gullible. How is that knowing whom to believe?

..., and that we are not God, but His creation/i>

They don't know unless we tell them. They have to like you to believe you. And if they like a stranger (usually because a stranger has something they want) they will believe a stranger and forget what the parents said about not talking to strangers, which is exactly what Eve did.

That book contains the truth of the prophets and the words of God

If you choose to believe that.

Do you criticize the Jews for that same reason?

I don't criticize anyone for their beliefs, Dr. E. I am only reminding that statements of faith are not necessarily statements of fact.

The Jews believe that God wrote the Torah before the foundation of the world. That is the only word of God they acknowledge. The Prophets are inspired, and lower in author than the Torah (the five Books of Moses), and the Writings are even lower in authority than the Prophets. The Torah is eternal. It cannot be "fulfilled" and replaced. Only the Jews are required to keep the Law because they are the priestly nation chosen by God.

I don't believe any of that, but they do and I don't criticize it unless they insist that I believe it as a matter of fact (which they don't).

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

Well said, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

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.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[kosta50]

It says brain cells well into the adulthood, not an individual’s whole life. Besides, the experiment is a single instance research. It will have to be verified by other researches independently. Besides, growing a cell here and there to maintain the organ is one thing. One cannot grow a section of a scooped out brain removed during surgery for stroke, or a new kidney, etc. Like I said, maintenance potential not reconstruction.

[count-your-change]

“Jesus thought they were fit for heaven.”

Where does it say that?