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.
Are you upset? That would be a shame.
Excuse me, but this is the grown-ups table. Grow up if you want to participate.
I wasn’t at all sure I had that straight.
Thanks for the correction.
Between the two of you,
There’s a deeper, broader, richer set of RC history and experiences than probably almost all random collections of 10 RC’s hereon, I’d wager.
It's the only choice that some have when an ex- of their organization speaks up and exposes the organization for what it really is, RC or not.
They can't deny the truth of what is said by someone with experience, so discrediting them is the only tactic left.
I've seen it happen many a time on the LDS threads as those who have left the LDS organization expose the blatant lies the LDS teaches.
There’s a deeper, broader, richer set of RC history and experiences than probably almost all random collections of 10 RC’s hereon, I’d wager.
Except maybe for the rabid clique types.
They sound like they were born sucking on a Rosary; kissing toes of statues and genuflecting in stereo and have kept at it every waking moment until the fossilization process started in—which is obviously well along.
Paranois will destroy ya.
I don’t think the RC’s have the least excuse for any whining in such regards. Their rock throwing surpasses that of all the other groups combined many times over.
NOPE. Sorry to disappoint . . . sort of.
Winding down after a long day. About to hit the shower.
Very, very calm.
No, actually the prosperity gospel is a Pat Robertson thing.
Protestants mostly adhere to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; you know, the one that the Papists rejected in favor of the worship of Semiramis, the mother of God, Queen of Heaven.
.
LOL.
It would be shocking if any of the rabid clique folks
could
TELL THE DIFFERENCE between
2 year old mentalities so chronically wallowed in by their in-grown groups . . . and 82 year old accomplished wise maturity.
However, to be fair, a 2 year old’s brain is not fully developed.
ROFLOL!!!
INDEED. QUITE SO.
.
.
BTW, what would I have to be concerned about. I'm NOT Dr E!
.
.
.
Much to the thankfulness of her hubby.
ACTUALLY
GOD SAID
HE WOULD
THAT WE PROSPER AND BE IN HEALTH
EVEN AS OUR SOULS PROSPER.
GOD’S IDEA.
Kenneth Hagin popularized it so much that verse is often called “Hagin 11:24” IIRC.
Pat Robertson believes the Scripture. He’s not a wild prosperity Gospel sort of person.
Beautiful non sequitur. Just lovely.
I’m not surprised the level of assessment/discernment is evidently not up to the discrimmination challenge construed as presented.
Perhaps the difference will be easer to distinguish next time.
Tossing out the rubber dictionary might help.
You misspelled “discrimination.”
Are you planning to give eyes to the blind? Are you going to give ears to the deaf? Will you give life to a dead man?
No. When Christ told us to "follow Him" He meant for us to believe in Him as Lord, God and Savior. And with that faith in Christ comes the good fruits of the Holy Spirit who is progressively sanctifying us into His image.
Roman Catholics presume salvation is earned, and it is not. Read your Bibles.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Could Paul have been any clearer? Men perform righteous, selfless acts because the Holy Spirit has transformed them into new men with new hearts and renewed minds who willingly perform the good deeds of Jesus Christ.
That is part of men's sanctification. It is not where our salvation lies. Salvation is by Christ's righteousness alone, mercifully imputed to the sinner by God to bring that sinner into repentance for his sins and gratitude for the gift of God's free grace.
Gee, the subject sure got changed fast enough when I wouldn’t take being called a liar without exposing it.
Imagine that.
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.