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.
“You can have the resonable hope of salvation if you do what the Holy Catholic Church proposes for your salvation and stay away from sin”
No, hope is a grace given by the Holy Spirit, like faith and love, (Rom.15:13), “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.“
“That hope is a Christian virtue and a necessary component of sanctification”
That is true however, only the regenerate (adopted) are being “sanctified”, (1 John 3:2-3), “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure”.
“However you really know when you die and your works are judged”
No question works will be judged but not his salvation, (1 Cor. 3:13-15), “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
Paul tells the Romans (8:1-2) “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
At he end of his ministry he sums up his “hope”, his confident expectation this way, (2 Tim. 1:12) “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” And (2 Tim. 4:7-8) “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”
See, our “ hope “ is not wishful thinking or chance or dependant on an institution; it is a person and in a person (1 Tim. 1:1), “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;” (Heb. 6:18-19), “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
The Mt 25:31:46 passage does not apply to believers. Jesus is talking about the judging of the “nations”.
Really? Then why have you kept that hidden from us and instead fed us all of those contrived anecdotes and misinterpreted Baltimore Catechism quotes?
That's ironic coming from a member of an organization to whom Christ appears to be more of an afterthought than anything.
By the time you get through the layers of priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, rules, regulations, sacraments, confessions, communions, rosaries, penances, stations of the cross, saints, burning candles, sprinkling holy water, burning incense, and praying to Mary, you hardly find a mention of Jesus except to portray Him as our *Judge* instead of Savior.
Catholicism seems to treat Christ almost as a window dressing, or figurehead to give a stamp of approval or air of respectability and authority to everything else they teach. Talk about teaching the Gospel without Christ. What with all Catholics attribute to Mary alone, there's no need for Christ. Not to mention all the other works that they claim one must do to be saved. There's no room for the blood after all.
You have not been to a Catholic mass, or you would not say that. No Catholic treats Christ as an “afterthought.” To assert a calumny like that reveals only ignorance.
What a beautiful post, Sara. Thank you.
No reply to your excellent post. Figures.
Praise God.
I agree . . . now getting the head knowledge throughly into my heart knowledge is still a growing edge for me on that score.
Sigh.
You just cannot help yourself, can you?
It is not I that has jettisoned Christ from my "Christianity" in much the same manner as Joseph Smith has jettisoned Christ from his "Christianity". If Reformed apologists would quote Jesus from time to time, it would go a long way to convince Christians that the Reformed really as Christian. Pray tell us. We are waiting for your enlightenment on the subject.
It is not about me. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/intro.htm says that:
Ephesians is the great Pauline letter about the church. It deals, however, not so much with a congregation in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor as with the worldwide church, the head of which is Christ (Eph 4:15), the purpose of which is to be the instrument for making God's plan of salvation known throughout the universe (Eph 3:9-10). Yet this ecclesiology is anchored in God's saving love, shown in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:4-10), and the whole of redemption is rooted in the plan and accomplishment of the triune God (Eph 1:3-14). The language is often that of doxology (Eph 1:3-14) and prayer (cf Eph 1:15-23; 3:14-19), indeed of liturgy and hymns (Eph 3:20-21; 5:14).
The majestic chapters of Ephesians emphasize the unity in the church of Christ that has come about for both Jews and Gentiles within God's household (Eph 1:15-2:22, especially Eph 2:11-22) and indeed the "seven unities" of church, Spirit, hope; one Lord, faith, and baptism; and the one God (Eph 4:4-6). Yet the concern is not with the church for its own sake but rather as the means for mission in the world (Eph 3:1-4:24). The gifts Christ gives its members are to lead to growth and renewal (Eph 4:7-24). Ethical admonition is not lacking either; all aspects of human life and relationships are illumined by the light of Christ (Eph 4:25-6:20).
The letter is seemingly addressed by Paul to Christians in Ephesus (Eph 1:1), a place where the apostle labored for well over two years (Acts 19:10). Yet there is a curiously impersonal tone to the writing for a community with which Paul was so intimately acquainted (cf Eph 3:2 and Eph 4:21). There are no personal greetings (cf Eph 6:23). More significantly, important early manuscripts omit the words "in Ephesus" (see the note on Eph 1:1). Many therefore regard the letter as an encyclical or "circular letter" sent to a number of churches in Asia Minor, the addressees to be designated in each place by its bearer, Tychicus (Eph 6:21-22). Others think that Ephesians is the letter referred to in Col 4:16 as "to the Laodiceans."
But the message here that I take away from this letter is:
Ephesians 5: 1 So be imitators of God, 1 as beloved children, 2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma. 3 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, 4 no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
and Ephesians 3: 14 7 8 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that he may grant you in accord with the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner self, 17 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
The Church that Jesus created, not any works of men such as Luther or Calvin.
Uhhhh no.
This “we” are not waiting for that. LOL.
I believe that the historic evidence hereon indicates emphatically that . . .
If someone told you that your personal experience
was not your personal experience . . .
we’d likely have another 4th of July right here on this thread.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD STATION OF THE WHITE HANKY STRIKES AGAIN!
JA: You have not been to a Catholic mass, or you would not say that. No Catholic treats Christ as an “afterthought.” To assert a calumny like that reveals only ignorance.
I believe that the historic evidence hereon indicates emphatically that . . .
If someone told you that your personal experience
was not your personal experience . . .
we’d likely have another 4th of July right here on this thread.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD STATION OF THE WHITE HANKY STRIKES AGAIN!
i know...i was temporarily bored and i didn’t have you to * me! lol!
“Really? Then why have you kept that hidden from us and instead fed us all of those contrived anecdotes and misinterpreted Baltimore Catechism quotes?
********************************************************************************
Links? Quotes?
Everything I’ve stated about the Catholic church that you have objected to has been supported from the only site that you have said you consider to the the only reputable site for learning about the RCC.
If you think that I’ve quoted from the Baltimore Catechism, please provide the links to said quotes.
And as for the comment that I fed you all *contrived anecdotes*, well calling someone a liar using other terms is still calling them a liar.
I have not contrived anything. All the experiences that I’ve related are true and have happened. If you wish to not believe them and continue to live in denial about what the most Catholics really believe and are all about, I can’t stop you from doing that. But I will call a spade a spade and call you on your calling me a liar using other terms.
Talk about skirting the rules.
You were the one whining to the mods about others doing that, were you not? Like here....????
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2533801/posts?page=1589#1589
Well, Quix, anyone who HAD been to a Catholic mass would not say something like that, so, the assumption (big mistake) was ignorance, not malice. Because it is one or the other. It’s hard to believe that Catholics put anything or anyone ahead of Christ, if the person has been to a Catholic mass. Even one Catholic mass.
Yes, I do. Unfortunately, I HTML'd a left bracket P period, which eliminated the rest of the post and I did not check it before I posted it. Shame on me.
Basically I posted :
1 2 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. 2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. 3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? 5 You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. 6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, 4 or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces. 7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, 5 10 or a snake when he asks for a fish? 11 If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him. 12 6 "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 16: 24 19 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, 20 take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 21 26 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? 27 22 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Mark 12: 13 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child 2 will not enter it." 16 Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them. 17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? 3 No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'" 20 He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth." 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
Luke 12: 41 Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?" 42 And the Lord replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. 45 But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' 9 and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 then that servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful. 47 That servant who knew his master's will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; 48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master's will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.
Luke 14: 7 4 He told a parable to those who had been invited, noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table. 8 "When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not recline at table in the place of honor. A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him, 9 and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say, 'Give your place to this man,' and then you would proceed with embarrassment to take the lowest place. 10 Rather, when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, 'My friend, move up to a higher position.' Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." 12 Then he said to the host who invited him, "When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. 13 Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
And so on. The limo ride does not exist. It is only by persevering in the Lord's ways, with His Grace, that one may attain salvation.
Wellllllllllll, kiddies, how about you and DR E and maybe Alex Murphy;
TOTAL UP:
1. All the deaths of OUT-GROUPS at the hand of the Vatican and Vatican agents
vs
2. All the deaths of OUT-GROUPS at the hand of Calvinists and Calvinists’ agents.
I don’t think any of the Rabid RC’s would be willing to learn anything from that—given that their denial, obfuscation and super rationalizing modules are always functioning at full speed and capacity.
However, I think it would be illustrative for the lurkers and the rest of us. I think the numbers will be startlingly different.
And that the huge differences would be there regardless of
whether one ran the stats per attending participating members of the IN-GROUPs or per attending participating members of the OUT-GROUPS or a reasonable weighting of both.
It’s fascinating how the RC’s wail and whine to the max about the interminable chronic rock throwing over the sexual scandal under the Vatican umbrella. Yet, the Calvinist thing never gets a rest—year after year—from the RC’s. I’m beginning to think the whole thing is some flavor of a personal vendetta.
Yes, we most certainly are assured. By the words of Jesus the Christ and not by any tent preacher with big hair.
Everything I’ve stated about the Catholic church that you have objected to has been supported from the only site that you have said you consider to the the only reputable site for learning about the RCC.
If you think that I’ve quoted from the Baltimore Catechism, please provide the links to said quotes.
And as for the comment that I fed you all *contrived anecdotes*, well calling someone a liar using other terms is still calling them a liar.
I have not contrived anything. All the experiences that I’ve related are true and have happened. If you wish to not believe them and continue to live in denial about what the most Catholics really believe and are all about, I can’t stop you from doing that. But I will call a spade a spade and call you on your calling me a liar using other terms.
Talk about skirting the rules.
You were the one whining to the mods about others doing that, were you not? Like here....????
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2533801/posts?page=1589#1589
NO DOUBT TO THE MAX. GOOD JOB.
THX.
You know that about me, do you? How?
That goes in direct contradiction of everything Ive said about myself. Are you claiming that you know my past or are reading my mind?
No Catholic treats Christ as an “afterthought.” To assert a calumny like that reveals only ignorance.
The whole Catholic Church treats Christ as an afterthought, just a seal of approval and justification for the complex, hierarchical religious organization they have constructed for themselves.
LOL.
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.