Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Todays New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that Americas 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 Vaticans 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 doesnt. 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 Ratzingers primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vaticans inactionand implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his effortsthe 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 Churchs 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 Vaticans 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 storyon the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the articleis 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, hes understanding the situation were facing. At long last, well 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.
KOSTA: Jesus thought they were fit for heaven
Thank you! You have just disproved the EO error that men must be perfected in this life before they experience heaven in the next life.
We are saved in spite of our sins, not because we don't sin.
What you call trust is children's naïvete. They can be easily persuaded, misled, fooled.
Not if they are being led by Christ. The Good Shepherd promises not to lose any of His flock.
Inspired comes from Latin spiritus, a translation of Greek pneuma, which means breath, or wind, which is a synonym for mover. Inspired simply means moved. It doesn't mean God-breathed. That's why Paul had to specifically say that all writings were God-breathed, not just breathed (inspired).
Nice try, though... Nice try, though...
Or even Pascal's "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
The heart pumps blood. It has no emotions; it doesn't think, feel, or imagine, as the ancients believed. Because our heartbeat increases in frequency and intensity when we get excited, the ancients associated it with emotions.
Look it up. You seem to have plenty of time.
Superciliousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain your point
Are you making this personal again? I am not the subject of discussion. Stay on the topics. Can you do that?
And recall my earlier quote from Pascal.
Yes, thank you, the heart is a pump. The quote is idiotic.
They never refer to God as their "Daddy." The Orthodox see children as pure, unadulterated, and sinless.
What do you think the Pater Noster is, anyway?
A Latin title of a prayer, meaning Our Father.
Anyway, all this is inconsequential on a cosmic scale. In our little village things matter. But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
Or intelligence.
Wrong. The Orthodox church teaches no such thing.
Matthew 18:3 and 19:14
If poetry or music is said to be inspired, then that opens up the possibility that it is not "merely" human in origin.
Or even Pascal's "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
The heart pumps blood. It has no emotions; it doesn't think, feel, or imagine, as the ancients believed. Because our heartbeat increases in frequency and intensity when we get excited, the ancients associated it with emotions.
Pedantry is a great way to skirt uncomfortable issues.
Pascal's quote simply illustrates the contrast between savoir and connaître.
You (apparently) hold the the view that savoir is both necessary and sufficient to encompass all of existence; but merely asserting it over and over again, while denying the existence (such as inspiration, beauty, and the like) as anything other than physical phenomena, is begging the question -- especially as you cannot account for such things in detail down to a molecular level.
Hari Seldon would probably want to kick your ass. :-)
Cheers! Cheers!
Please don't make thing up. The EOC teaches nothing of that sort.
The EOC does not subscribe to the Augustinian doctrine of the original sin or the Protestant distortion thereof. In the Church, children are innocent until they can commit sin. No one is born "guilty."
We are saved in spite of our sins, not because we don't sin.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you: "I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:21)
Not if they are being led by Christ
How can they accept Christ before the age of reason?
YOU: Look it up. You seem to have plenty of time.
I asked if you claimed Free Will for your choices, and you replied with the non-sequitur "It's called reason."
So, define your terms.
ME:Superciliousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain your point
YOU:Are you making this personal again? I am not the subject of discussion. Stay on the topics. Can you do that?
I am. I used the word "your" point as a synonym for "one's" -- a possessive.
But I applied it to you since you don't appear to be arguing anyone *else's* point on this thread...
And the word superciliousness was used to characterize the brief answer to my question, where you used a buzzword "reason" in a condescending tone .
Oh, and as far as making it personal -- if you insist on this, then don't include personal comments about how much time ("plenty") I seem to have, followed by a sneer ("look it up") that I should rectify a defect in your postings. Merely answering "it's called reason" is something of a non-sequitur to the question of whether you yourself claim to possess free-will: so asking you to define your terms is, and remains, legitimate, and in good faith.
Cheers!
Who says?
Pedantry is a great way to skirt uncomfortable issues
And distortion or ambiguity are a great way to obfuscate issues.
You (apparently) hold the the view that savoir is both necessary and sufficient to encompass all of existence
Nope. Man's capacity is limited.
but merely asserting it over and over again, while denying the existence (such as inspiration, beauty, and the like) as anything other than physical phenomena...
They are human perceptions. We don't perceive things on a molecular level because we can't (without proper tools). Just as we can not perceive the extent of the universe without proper tools.
So, the first thing a rational being ought to keep in mind is that what we see, feel, experience etc. is just an experience, an illusion, if you will, not necessarily the truth on a molecular, quantum or cosmic level.
Hari Seldon would probably want to kick your ass. :)
How appropriate, a fictional character!
So you admit that was a strawman? ("Abba, Father, all things are possible with you" are the words of Christ.)
Cheers!
Well then why don't you start by defining "free" and "will?" We may be talking right past each other. Okay?
Hardly. Abba means father in Aramaic. EO never refer to God as "Daddy" in any language.
I don't think all animals are conscious, few if any. As far as our evidence goes, consciousness seems to require quite a bit of evolution first.
But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
We are part of creation. Our attributes are part of creation. If we have consciousness part of creation is conscious; if we have purpose, part of creation has purpose, etc.
You were (apparently) attempting a dilemma by saying either people are predestined (God makes what he wants to happen, happen), or they have free-will.
I think that is an oversimplification -- there are degrees of influence, and constraints without full control, which don't fit into the horns of your dilemma.
See #1670, #1673, and #725.
BUT -- since you yourself laid claim to the "God wills it, so we don't have free will; OR God wills it, but He doesn't get his way, so God is not omnipotent" ...
I wondered whether you "really" believed that construct, or you were just using it in a cheap shot to attack Christians with.
I asked the question above to find out which one it was.
Cheers!
THAT'S FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT.
Remember the Marxist claim that "Religion is the opiate of the masses" ?
(E.g. Christianity is only believed as an self-induced ameliorative to suffering).
Now you're saying the suffering makes it impossible to believe Christianity.
And then of course, you have St. Paul's remark that "if for this life only we have believed in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied" or the admonitions in Hebrews 11 about those of old who had faith who never experienced the promised good; or Augustine meditating on the sack of Rome; or the worldwide symbol of Christianity being a man from a working-class ethnic minority in a military-occupied country being tortured to death following His conviction by an illegal kangaroo court.
SURE Christianity is only an armchair game for the comfortable.
Hack cough *spit*.
And for contemporary refernces, I think it was QUIX who talked about dealing with an alcoholic who left his child to suffer frostbite in a car in 12-degree weather while the alcoholic got drunk...and the other alcoholic who repented.
Cheers! Nice try.
Why do animals show some intelligence and plants don't? Do you think all animals are conscious? Or do they just blindly react?
I don't think all animals are conscious, few if any. As far as our evidence goes, consciousness seems to require quite a bit of evolution first.
But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
We are part of creation. Our attributes are part of creation. If we have consciousness part of creation is conscious; if we have purpose, part of creation has purpose, etc.
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.