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.
Welllllllll
probably if your
white hanky’s
didn’t cover much,
you’d run for better cover, too.
LOL.
Or,if I told the little one "your mommy will be with you until one of you leaves this earth",would it mean anything?
Even if I concluded my happy talk with the statement that "all you need to do is believe", do you really think it's enough? And then when you extend that to include the supernatural world it gets too big to even imagine.
And that is why I am so grateful that Christ established a Church to protect the deposit of faith of our Triune God.
And that is why I am so grateful that Christ established a Church to protect the deposit of faith of our Triune God.
What does that even mean, if you don't think Christ being with you for your entire life isn't enough?
Roman Catholics need to read the Bible.
I don't say "all you need to do is believe." Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity; Son of God; Lord, Savior and Redeemer of the world; that is who says "all you need to do is believe."
The rest will all fall into place if you have been justified by the good shepherd. Trust in Christ alone, and the rest is easy.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
That is the instruction of Jesus Christ to you and me personally, specifically, immediately.
It is enough. It is everything.
lol. Exactly right.
Obviously they are showing to the world that their superstitions and magick and empty rituals are even more important to them than Jesus Christ Himself.
When they talk like that it sure is easy to point out the error. They do it for us.
It is understandable why they hate Sola Scriptura so much.
We can both agree on that!!Although we may place what it means to us a little differently.
And,wasn't it Paul that said "I believe,I believe,Lord,help my unbelief"? What do you think he meant?
You both understood what was said there? I’ve read it 3 times and I still don’t get it/
Who is smarter - the monkey throwing excrement, or the person who leaves the cage?
Dr. E,When they talk like that it sure is easy to point out the error. They do it for us.
I didn't find that you pointed out any error at all. You seem to be dealing with it piecemeal and I am reading the same thing in context.
hmmmm. I’ve read this one 3 times, too.
maybe after church if I have time and energy.
Heading there shortly.
They are so caught up in their works theology that they can't accept that Jesus will be with you always if you're one of His. We are seeing The Gospel considered foolishness right before our eyes.
Thanks for the interpretation! I thought I was going mad...!
He meant all men are fallen and every day we battle our "old man" who still wants to sin by yielding to temptation. It's not easy to trust God 24/7 with all our whole heart. But that is the commandment and that is what we strive to do. If we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, we will be able to trust in God to the saving of our souls. If not, we won't want to bother.
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin... For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace... Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." -- Romans 6:5-6,14,18"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
How are we "made free from sin" when we still sin every day, as John reminded us in 1 John 1:8?
By Christ dying in our place and taking on the punishment rightly due us so that we now stand before God acquitted of our sins by the faith, obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ mercifully imputed to us.
"Be not afraid; only believe." We can both agree on that!! Although we may place what it means to us a little differently.
Where do you place it?
I appreciate your saying that,I was going to continue posting despite the fact that I get tired of explaining or reading the same things explained over and over again to no avail. It may have more to do with a size,span and scope of our world views. Anyway I just may be finished for a while thanks to your little observation.
That is EXACTLY what is happening. Great observation, perfectly stated, William.
Have you read post #203 and rejected it, or are you looking for a different response?
I'm sorry if some of us seem like we are posting in short hand. For Evangelicals Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior being with us forever is enough. We trust Him when He said,
John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but do you know The Gospel?
Many Christians would be shocked to hear another Christian say it isn't enough to have Christ with them for their entire lives.
It's the "yes, but..." that has people puzzled.
There is no "yes, but..." if Christ is in you. There is theology. There is ecclesiocracy. There is correct worship.
But there is NOTHING more required for salvation than God's free, merciful, unearned gift of Jesus Christ within. That is EVERYTHING. That is what separates the sheep from the wolves; the acquitted from the condemned; the found from the lost.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
lolol. Maybe that was the point. It’s not easy shadow-boxing against confusion. 8~)
we are saved, sealed and seated already in the heavenlies in Christ. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ! We are assured that we will be saved from the wrath to come.
Why wouldn't this be enough for anyone?
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.