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.
JA's comments make perfect sense in the context of nonsense rolling out of the Geneva gutters. Catholics are told daily that their dogma is not their dogma, that their Catechism contains and means things completely different from reality, and the personal histories of their clergy have been completely fabricated in the most denigrating of ways and it is all considered fair and open dialog.
Agree?
Absolutely.
Oh, well, I was *assuming* honesty on your part. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Afterthought? Interesting statement. Without going into the whole devotion to Jesus and the Eucharist, let me ask you this: when you read the Catechism and see the proofs, how many of them come from Jesus? When you read such as the Heidelberg Confession, how may of the proofs come from Jesus?
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.
Ah, we get to the meat of it. The Reformed have transformed the meaning of Christianity from obligation to the Lord of Lords by His people to obligation from the Lord of Lords to the self identified elect. You guys think that Jesus is obliged to save you. You guys think that since you have self identified as the elect, that God has no choice except to give you guys the limo ride to Reformed heaven.
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.
Really? If Catholics have dispensed with the blood, then why the emphasis on the Crucifix with blood from His wounds portrayed in vivid detail?
The more time I spend in the presence of the failed Catholics and the Geneva gutter brown hankie clique the more I learn about playing gutterball. I owe you a lot in that regard.
Well, if you had read my posting history and posts on these threads, you would KNOW what I stated about my history.
And since you’ve been on most of the threads that I’ve been on and my posts are there for all to see, you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone, especially me, that your conclusion was a “mistake”. I’ve made it far too clear on too many threads what my personal history and connections to the Catholic church are.
Appreciate the post. No, there usually isn't a response except occasionally to say that these verses don't apply to the self identified elect.
Those assertions sound extremely rigid and unalterable, to me.
They logically presume that everyone else is identical inside their head and their experiences with your head and your experiences.
Talk about AN ASSUMPTION! SHEESH!
It also seems to me to be inescapable that there is a further assumption that metmom did NOT attend Roman Catholic Mass for umpteen years of her life; nor teach Catechism.
IIRC, metmom has been quite candid about an extensive and very faithful and involved Roman Catholic life.
Now one can pretend that metmom is lying in one’s own head. I’d consider that gross self-deception, however.
Metmom has come across congruent, solid, grounded, rational, honest, candid, and extremely well experienced on every Roman Catholic issue I’ve ever read her comments on. I’d feel the same way if she’d been speaking AGAINST Pentecostalism. That’s just how she comes across, PERIOD.
One can deny that evidence in their own mind and one can make assertions pretending that said denials are truth and facts. That’s FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR from making them so.
I suggest that all those of the RC rabid cliques need to find a more honorable and integrous way of dealing with such truths and facts.
Killing the messenger every time a former RC steps up to the plate is full of folly. It doesn’t take a PhD psychologist to see through such chronic false accusations that are routinely lobbed at the former RC’s.
They have NOT—many of them—have NOT been poorly Catechized. Many, like metmom, IRRC, taught the Catechism with significant praise from both the hierarchy as well as the sheeple.
Pretending otherwise is being dishonest to one’s self with fitting consequences to follow in due course.
I recommend that the Rabic Clique folks Deal with it.
BESIDES ALL THAT,
WE SEE A VERY LONG ENDLESS PARADE OF RC’S ON FR
PUT ALL MANNER, TYPES AND NUMBERS OF THINGS AHEAD OF CHRIST.
WE SEE IT RELENTLESSLY ON THESE THREADS.
IT IS VIVIDLY AND HORRIFICALLY DISPLAYED AND FURTHER DEFENDED AS “CHRISTIAN.”
Sheesh.
Perhaps you’re right, but all anti-Catholics look alike to me. Mea culpa.
That has nothing to do with the post.
You were whining about others skirting the rules and then went on to accuse me of posting *contrived anecdotes*, aka lying, were you not?
How is using the term *contrived ancedotes* not skirting the RF rules of calling people liars?
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.
Sure seems that way from where I sit.
I didn’t used to think that. I figured accusations of such were too much Proddy bias.
SEEING SUCH PROVEN DAY IN AND DAY OUT ON THESE THREADS BY THE RC’ THEMSELVES, LEAVES ME NO ROOM FOR DOUBT ANY LONGER.
MORE UNMITIGATED NONSENSE
from UNNATURAL BAWL INC.
With all due respect, how the heck would you or anyone know if anyone was citing the exact Catechism and meaning or simply making it up as they went along without any actual or formal education on the subject?
It seems to me your "objective" brown hankie standard is whether or not what you are being told conforms to your preexisting notions and prejudices.
Wrong mom teaching catechism. It was Rnmomof7, IIRC.
I’m the mom with the priests and nun in the extended family.
But I guess they didn’t get it right either.
we were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise when we believed. Not going to be. Were. A seal cannot broken, except by the recipient, Jesus Christ. The redemption of the purchased possession. Not going to be. Have been. (BTW, that's eternal security).
And it gives us the way to rightly divide the Word of Truth.(2 Timothy 2:15). TIME PAST...BUT NOW...AGES TO COME..
the mystery of Christ is also discussed in Ephesians. (you know, one of those REVELATIONS Paul received from Christ)
If you are talking about religious persecution, then you might wish to go back and reread the prating about the great religious practices of the American Presbyterian Calvinist colonies versus the reality of the religious intolerance that really were practiced.
The American experience was held up as a beacon of religious freedom, whereas, in reality, religious persecution was as great, if not more so, than in the various countries in Europe - the Calvinist groups leading the way. Read about the Quakers killed by the Puritans in Massachusetts and about William Penn providing safe haven.
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.
Who is whining, Quix? Have I ever complained to a mod? Ask the RM yourself if you do not believe me. The anti Catholic rhetoric from the Reformed and their allies is unbelieveable - it is a throwback to the anti Catholic rhetoric of the mid and late 1800s in the United States and Britain. Yet, I would ask you to provide evidence of me whining in order to back up your statement.
Wonder if he approves of mitigated nonsense
I never thought it would be delightful
to see how
UNMITIGATEDLY WRONG
some folks chronically are.
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.