Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[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.

[xzins]

But he is deifnitely not suggesting with that expression that he pre-existed the creation the way Septuagint does in Ex 3:14 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (ego eimi ho on) = "I am the existence."

Of course He is; read John's prologue again.

[xzins]

My Greek classes always translated ego eimi as “I am.” Without fail. FWIW, “am” does indicate continued state of being.

[kosta50]

First “I am” is the translators choice of words to use to translate the Greek “ego eimi”. Whatever their motives it is not the best translation into English, the language we speak. Time is involved and in English it has to be noted. Therefore other translators translate the Greek “ego eimi” to reflect Jesus’ CONTINUEOUS existence, i.e., “I (have) existed”, “I have been” or something similar

That is correct. These are all verbal acrobatics, stretching the meaning by implication. It means continuous existence in John 1:1, but in John 8:58 it simply alludes to pre-existing Moses, but not necessarily that he pre-existed existence or that he is the existence (ho on) itmself. And a simple eimi is translated as "I have been" in John 14:9. So, it is a human choice of words.

[kosta50]

FWIW, “am” does indicate continued state of being.

No it indicates existence here and now.

[kosta50]

The prologue is the author’s intention and theme; the way he phrases John 8:58 does not correspond to his prologue.

[xzins]

Come on Kosta...John is very consistent

[Alamo-Girl]

AG, I understand what the author of John's Gospel is trying to say by using the present indicative "I am" instead of past tense. Nevertheless, it does not suggest that he existed before creation; just Moses. And the Pharisees were angry with him for saying he lived before Moses did and yet he is not even 50 years old, and not because they thought he was saying he existed before all creation.

LOLOL! Jesus testifying that he was alive before Abraham was born would have meant He was about 2,000 years old in a physical, time-bound sense.

There is no way these empiricists ("I can only trust my physical senses and reasoning") would have understood Jesus to mean that He was physically 2,000 years old.

The issue was not new in John 8. Just a few chapters earlier:

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? – John 6:41-42

To borrow a page from xzins, the Gospel of John flatly states that Jesus is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

And again,

I and [my] Father are one. – John 10:30

And again,

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. – John 17:5

Truly, one would have to eliminate every writing attributed to John and Paul to claim that Scriptures do not testify that Jesus Christ is God.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

And again, to borrow the point xzins was making earlier:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

I perceive nature itself reacting to those simple words, I AM, spoken by the Creator of "all that there is." Again, from the Gospel of John:

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6

And again,

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. – Luke 19:40

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. – Romans 8:22

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

God’s Name is I AM.

[annalex]

real faith is demonstrated to be real by the works

According to Matthew 25:31-46 (and Romans 2:6-10) we are judged directly by our works. You can advance a hypothesis that one who ha "real faith" will also do good works, but that hypothesis is nowhere in the scripture, whereas the fact that good works lead to salvation is demonstrated many times in the scripture.

Eph 2:8&9

.. agrees with the Catholic Church: we are saved by faith and by good works (see Eph 2:10, which for some reason you decided to pretend is not there).

You don't work for a gift. You work for wages. Gifts are free and only have to be accepted.

It is true that works worked for wages are not salvific. Good works that God "prepared for us that we may walk in them (Eph 2:10) are obviously salvific because the scripture says so, and yes, the divine providence of these good works is a gift. What are these works? Re-read Matthew 5-7, or see the examples in Mt 25:34-40.

[xzins]

I perceive nature itself reacting to those simple words, I AM, spoken by the Creator of "all that there is." Again, from the Gospel of John: As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6

Thank you, sister, it is another of those verses that clearly demonstrates that John is BUILDING a case. The "I am" causes a "power struck" reaction. The "I am" causes an attempted stoning that is followed by a mysterious slipping away.

It is just beyond credulity to maintain that this was not connected to Exodus 3:14 (particularly to the part b summation in Exodus 3:14.)

Of all the New Testament writers, John uses a consistent array of words across his gospel, his letters, and his apocalypse....The Word, linen, name, etc.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Reformed lexicon means that one must be a 5-point TULIP believer and it is good and holy to persecute to the death anybody who doesn’t believe it.

Since no one is making that assumption, you would be wrong in labeling that as any kind of "reformed lexicon."

When Roman Catholic apologists can't find anything substantive to argue about, they resort to ridicule and sarcasm.

No one thinks it's good to put to death anyone for religious beliefs.

The point, however, is that the scope of this kind of sin is vastly different. The Puritans put one woman to death, which is certainly indefensible.

The Roman Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not more, and makes no apologies for it.

The RCC institutionalized murder by way of the Inquisition. It's no historical aberration in a less tolerant era. It is who they were and who they are.

[Alamo-Girl]

Oh so very true, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you for those beautiful Scriptures and your glorious testimony.

[xzins]

Behold how good and how pleasant when (God’s children) dwell together in unity.

God’s Word is Truth, sister.

I must be gone for a bit. Later.

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen!!!

I am ecstatic, dear brother in Christ. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[annalex]

I don't think you are saying anything new in this post compared to the previous post, so let me just make a general remark: the second part of James 2 is dedicated to the question of faith without works and declares such faith dead. It concludes squarely by saying that faith alone does not save. You cannot amplify, obfuscate, or use bigger fonts to get away from this.

That there is a real faith opposed to fake faith is true. The two are distinguished by the fact that man with real faith also does good works. So that sophistry about "real faith" does not prove that we are saved by faith alone. We are saved by faith that also produces good works, which is real faith. We are not saved by faith alone. You could, in sophistry, say that we are saved by real faith alone, but then you just substituted "faith and works" with "real faith" and stepped outside of the terminology chosen by the inspired writer of the Scripture.

A few additional remarks.

Another Protestant obfuscation is to say that faith automatically produces good works so it is faith that saves and works just automatically follow. This is also an empty sophistry. First, nowhere does the Bible say so. You can, of course, conclude from many passages, as well as from reason, that it is usually works and not naked faith that we see. This is a lesson one might derive from Hebrew 11. But Hebrew 11 -- or any other passage you might point to -- does not say that we are saved by faith alone. It says that we are saved by faith and freely chosen works of obedience and charity (examples: Hebrews 11, Matthew 25).

Mat 25:21-46 merely notes the same Biblical truth. SAVING FAITH IS FOLLOWED BY EARNEST WORKS DONE OUT OF A GOD-BIRTHED-FAITH-FILLED HEART/SPIRIT/MIND. Those without Saving faith have no works to earn anything

This is a good example of you reading one thing and thinking another. Nowhere does Mat 25:21-46 mention any kind of faith. In fact, it mentions the opposite: the just, in Verses 37-39 express absence of faith, -- they are surpised that the good works they did had anything to do with Christ. They are saved by their works. And conversely, the foolish virgins also have faith int he coming of their groom -- since they, too wait for him eagerly (Mt 25:3,8). Their fault which cost them the union with the Groom was lack of preparedness, a form of good works.

If you want me to comment on one particular point in your lengthy post that you feel I swept aside without comment, please point it out.

[annalex]

(Gal. 2:16)

That says that we are not saved by Hebrew circumcision or generally works of the law. That is the Catholic teaching also. In dispute is the salvific nature of what the scripture calls "good works" that are not motivated by a temporal punishment or temporal reward.

[annalex]

See my previous post.

[annalex]

St. Paul never wrote anything that taught salvation by faith alone, or that taught any other heresy, or anything that contradicted the rest of the New Testament. He is a major saint of the Catholic Church, doctor and apostle whose writings are inspired by God and dictated onto perfection by the Holy Ghost. Ask St. Paul to pray for you and for your fellow heretics and you will be enlightened.

[metmom]

St. Paul never wrote anything that taught salvation by faith alone, or that taught any other heresy, or anything that contradicted the rest of the New Testament. He is a major saint of the Catholic Church, doctor and apostle whose writings are inspired by God and dictated onto perfection by the Holy Ghost. Ask St. Paul to pray for you and for your fellow heretics and you will be enlightened.

Here. Be enlightened by St. Paul.....

Ephesians 2: 8 & 9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Galatians 2:15 & 16 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 2: 20 & 21 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

[count-your-change]

Quite simply Jesus was saying he existed before Abraham existed and he obviously existed at the moment he was speaking (the present), action began in the past and continuing into the present. An undefined length of time but clearly more than 50 years or so.

In deed John 14:9 is an example of an action began in the past and continuing into the present, represented by the word “eimi”.

[Quix]

INDEED.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

How could such Scriptures mean anything else! Sheesh!