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.
Cite the source, or stop making things up.
That's the second time you've made this laughtable statement. Put up your evidence, or we'll just consider it more RC fiction.
Since your grasp of the history of the United States is approximately equal to your grasp of Christianity, I will provide the following courtesy of the state Government of Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2terminal&L=6&L0=Home&L1=State+Government&L2=About+Massachusetts&L3=Interactive+State+House&L4=Inside+the+State+House&L5=Statues+in+Bronze&sid=massgov2&b=terminalcontent&f=interactive_statehouse_statue_dyer&csid=massgov2 says that:
"Quaker Mary Dyer
Sculptor: Sylvia Shaw Judson Created: 1959
When Anne Hutchinson was banished for her spiritual beliefs in 1638, one person came to her side in support, Mary Dyer. She and her husband William had emigrated to Boston just three years earlier, and like many Pilgrims in Boston they had become interested in Hutchinson's spiritual thinking.
Some of Hutchinson's supporters, including the Dyers, decided to move with her to Roger Williams' colony in Rhode Island. In 1650 the Dyers went to London to advocate that Rhode Island receive a royal charter. While there, they attended Quaker meetings and returned practicing a new faith.
Massachusetts Puritan leadership saw the Quaker faith as a far more threatening influence than an individual heretic like Hutchinson. In 1658 they enacted laws to punish anyone who aided a Quaker, and to torture or kill those who professed that belief.
Two of Mary Dyer's friends, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson had been arrested for heresy in Boston. When Dyer went to visit them in jail, she was arrested for aiding them. All three were exiled and warned not to return.
Within a few weeks, they did return to Boston to protest the repression on conscience. They were arrested and tried again.
This time they were sentenced to hang. On October 27th, 1659 the three were paraded across the Boston Common to the gallows by two hundred guards. The Quakers tried to call out to the crowd, but were drowned out by the beating of drums. Robinson and Stevenson professed their beliefs as they died. Next Mary Dyer stood with a noose tightened around her neck, facing the crowd, as her husband begged for her life.
Governor John Endicott stayed her execution and exiled her again with a final warning to be gone. Seven months later she returned to face the law; the middle-aged mother of six was finally executed on June 1st, 1660.
As a result, her husband William returned to the King of England, who pressured Massachusetts to end the martyring of Quakers. He also agreed to the Lively Experiment, which made Rhode Island the first place where citizens were insured a right to freely practice any religion.
Though the brutal Puritan laws inspired fear and submission, the convictions of protesters like Mary Dyer were stronger still. The faith of Mary Dyer inspired a new tolerance, which was enshrined in Massachusetts Constitution, which later became the model for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights."
Nice to see that your public school education's obvious utility is publically in effect.
Don’t know much about the subject, and don’t have a dog in the fight...
Also, “A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and Martyrdom of the People of God, called Quakers, in New-England, for the Worshipping of God (1661)”:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/23/
"Governor John Winthrop brought her to court on charges of heresy. Hutchinson was not allowed counsel, or witnesses -- she stood alone and responded to questioning by the legislature, before being banished in 1638."
So we have one woman banished for heresy. That is not the religious jihad you painted. She was not put to death, like the papists slaughtered Christians during the Inquisition and the Reformation.
Also form the site...
"Though the brutal Puritan laws inspired fear and submission...
lol. Written by a papist, no doubt. Or an atheist.
How much evidence do you need. There is no shortage of it for those who really want to know the truth. If you are a doubting Thomas and wish to place your fingers on something tangible there is a statue of one Mary Dyer who was hanged on Boston Common on June 1, 1660 for the crime of being a Quaker. The entire sordid story is detailed in: Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker that was Hanged on Boston Common, June 1, 1660, Horatio Rogers, (New York: 1896)
I have a book with an excellent recitation of the brutalities practiced by the Puritans against all non-Puritans: The English in America - The Puritan Colonies, J. A. Doyle, M.A., Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Longmans, Green, and Co. London, 1887
"In Puritan Massachusetts several Quakers were hanged on Boston Common in October 1659. On the first day of June in 1660, Mary Dyer became a martyr for her Quaker faith as she swung from a gibbet on the green fields of Boston Common. Other Quakers were fined, banished, imprisoned or tortured. Catholic priests were forbidden to enter Massachusetts on pain of death." Religious violence - American Style By Albert J. Menendez
The first Friends to visit American were Mary Fisher and Anne Austin, who arrived in Massachusetts in 1656. They were sent away by the magistrates, but others arrived after them. In 1659 William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson were hanged on Boston Common, as was Mary Dyer the following year. - History of the Society of Friends in America in American Church History Series (New York, 1894)
" In and around Salem, Massachusetts the Quakers are harassed, beaten, deported, and sometimes even hanged for what they believe." - The Persecution of Quakers: Quakers Arrested in Salem, Mary Trotter Kion
It is no coincidence that the only instance of official martyrdom (the execution of four Quaker missionaries in Massachusetts in the 1650s) occurred in a colony that boasted both a strong established church and a powerful magistracy." - What’s "Sacred" a.bout Violence in Early America? Susan Juster
If you need more I can bury you in proof.
Read the many sources posted here in response to your demands and admit you are the one making things up.
"The Puritans are so named as they sought to "purify" the Church of England.
I. Basic Puritan Beliefs and Values
Ethnocentrism predominated during the Early Colonial period; the Puritans believed that only their religion was the "correct" one and all others would be damned. See Salem Witchcraft Trials below as an example of the Puritans' intolerance. Roger Williams was also expelled for new and dangerous opinions as he preached a complete separation of church and state. The Puritans also persecuted and killed Quakers for preaching "inner light" doctrines. Anne Hutchinson was persecuted and expelled as well as she believed in individual grace and criticized the dual nature of religion and the government. Simplicity was the norm and anything excessive (clothes, decorations, even behavior, etc.) was seriously frowned upon.
Predestination: the Puritans believed in predestination--all events are fore known and foreordained by God. God would save who is chose to and damn those he chose as well. The question foremost in all Puritan's mind was "Am I saved?" They were born sinners and remained sinners unless redeemed by God; he was their absolute sovereign. Only He, through his Divine Grace, could save them, and no amount of good deeds could result in being saved.
Education was supported to thwart Satan and his temptations as well as to allow people to become literate enough to read the Bible. God's will, they believed, was revealed in the Bible.
Divine Mission: The Puritans believed that they would settle the New World for God.
II. Puritan Government
Church and state were intertwined causing a blurring of political and religious authority. Williams was expelled because he believed the state should have no say over a person's conscience. Roger Williams also held that Native Americans should be paid for their lands. Voting was restricted to active church members only. Supported Puritan religion by taxation on all, regardless of faith...
The Salem Witchcraft Trials: Intolerance at Its Worst
From January to September 1692, witchcraft hysteria reigned. The original event, occurred on Jan. 20, and the hysteria began when in Danvers, then a parish of Salem Town, known as Salem Village, the daughter, Betty, and niece, Abigail Williams, of the village minister, Rev. Samuel Parris began exhibited bizarre, inexplicable behavior. In mid February, finding no physical cause for the erratic behavior of screaming, swearing, seizures and trance like states, physicians concluded that the girls were under the influence of Satan. After numerous prayer services, fasting, and ingesting a witch cake (made of rye meal and the girls' urine), the girls named three women as the source of their affliction: Tituba, Rev. Parris' Caribbean Indian slave, Sarah Good, and Sarah Osborne.
Thus was set in motion the action of trials and imprisonment that would kill 24 people: 19 were hanged on Gallows Hill in Salem, and 5 died in prison. Eager to please government and religious officials, those accused confessed and named others to show their good faith. Some would not confess and continued to plead not guilty. Since they could not be convicted legally, they were often tortured to confess by such methods as stone weights being applied to the body or being thrown, weighted with heavy stones, into a body of water; if the person floated, they were a witch. Never mind that they sank; they were "saved" by their deaths. Ultimately, by late September, 50 had confessed, 100 were in prison, and accusations had been made against an additional 200 people. Criticism of the evidence by Cotton Mather and other clergy convinced the governor to intervene and release all those jailed and to halt the executions. Read A Chronology of Events: The Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692 for a complete lists of events and additional information."
So, Cotton Mather was not part of the Genevan ideal government of Calvin's state? Who was the religiously tolerant individual? Roger Williams, who was threatened with death and ultimately exiled because he wanted religious tolerance. Where is your United States ideal now? Let us simply agree that the Calvinist colonies in the United States were simply opporunistic thugs, using what they considered to be Christianity to be a club to beat those not of the elect with their own superiority.
So much for your United States Constitution. The only contribution of the Calvinists was the 1st Amendment's enactment by true Christians to protect the true Christians from the Calvinists.
Calvinists have no more interest in historical truth than they do in Christian truth. Much less their proofs.
With superior intellect, education, and fact the argument was in the bag, but none of that was necessary with God on our side.
I'm just trying to figure out why, since Calvin was the virtual monarch of Geneva, he would spend most of his life with two pancakes on his head:
I suppose that if you covered him with butter, strawberries and maple syrup, that he might be a little more palatable. Do you think that the earflaps kept the syrup from running into his ears?
Actually, the Roman Catholic church really got that one right. They knew it was a life and death struggle, something that we as a nation need to recognize. The Crusades as a concept (fighting islam) was an appropriate response to muslim aggression.
Not that that justifies everything done in the name of the Crusades, but the Crusades are a whole different issue than something like the Inquisition.
Actually they are very much related. The most notable of the inquisitions of which there were many conducted both by Catholic and Protestant governmental bodies, was the Spanish Inquisition. Its purpose was to de-Islamify the Iberian peninsula following 700 years of Islamic rule. Its not unlike what Ann Coulter said we ought to do in Iraq; kill its leaders and convert the population to Christianity.
Because tin foil wouldn't be invented for another 350 years.
If anyone could be "good enough" to merit salvation then Christ died for nothing.
you: But does that make him real? If I believe in pink unicorns (or Santa for that matter) they are "real" to me, but does that make them real or just imaginary?
God's Name is I AM. His Name is also Alpha and Creator, i.e. there is no thing and no one and no time before Him.
He IS before I ever was, before I ever knew Him.
Yes, except the Old Testament God doesn't say "I am who I am" but "I will be who I will become."
That still doesn't address my question. :)
Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.
The Incommunicable Name was pronounced "Adonai," and where Adonai and Yhwh occur together the latter was pronounced "Elohim." After the destruction of the Second Temple there remained no trace of knowledge as to the pronunciation of the Name (see Jehovah). The commentators, however, agree as to its interpretation, that it denotes the eternal and everlasting existence of God, and that it is a composition of (meaning "a Being of the Past, the Present, and the Future"). The name Ehyeh () denotes His potency in the immediate future, and is part of Yhwh. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Ex. iii. 14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Ex. iii. 12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onḳelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.
Didn't Popeye say 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.