Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Todays New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that Americas 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 Vaticans 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 doesnt. 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 Ratzingers primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vaticans inactionand implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his effortsthe 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 Churchs 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 Vaticans 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 storyon the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the articleis 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, hes understanding the situation were facing. At long last, well 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.
sorry, but I’m right. it is “eigo eimi.”
you’ve simply typed out what some translator chose for some bible translation
A-G, I’m looking at the text online at virtualseminary.com and for John 6:20 it’s ego eimi in the TR, the WH, and the Byz
WH: (Greek NT - W-H ) John 6:20 o de legei autois egw eimi mn fobeisthe
all amusing, but all people with an agenda. the text is what it is and “ego eimi” = “I am”
On another point:
The Father is not begotten. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. - John 1:18
And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:9-11
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Revelation 5:6
To the contrary,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last... - Revelation 1:11
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. - Revelation 21:6
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. - Revelation 22:13
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. John 18:6
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
some might want to jump into this “ego eimi” discussion.
without getting into another whole-blown discussion of the Trinity, your understanding of the unity of the Godhead is on the money. It’s combining the triunity with the unity that’s always a stickler. :>)
If you find it, let me know.
What’s fascinating about the “ego eimi” in John 6:20 is:
1. It’s a stand alone ego eimi accompanying an absolutely astonishing miracle demonstrating power over creation itself. (I AM)
2. It’s been subject to a host of scholars trying to smooth it over, so it’s lost in the shuffle as one scans the English looking for “I am” statements. That makes this one an exciting addition.
Thank you for those wonderful insights, dear brother in Christ!
(I'm still trying to locate the transposed source - I'll let you know when I find it.)
To translate John 6:20 as “I Am” in English violates the sense of the Scripture and good translation. Jesus is telling the disciples why they should not be afraid, he is there, it's him. It is I.
More accurately, I just copied and pasted from the Douay translation.
Jeepers... Sorry about that.
Yep, I see how in their chart they reverse the order.
BTW, cyc, it’s not a “reply.” Look at the text again. Jesus is not replying to anything they’ve asked Him. He has “read” their fear and is claiming authority over creation and over their fear. Young’s literal has it right with the exception of his parenthetical addition where he, too, tries to smooth it out.
In fact, this particular stand-alone “I am” pretty well proves for the fair-minded Alamo-girl’s contention about the “I am” in the “before Abraham” verse.
I agree with you. I simply mentioned the word order for the record, as some (not you) seem to give it undue attention.
BTW, kosta, Bultmann is a known heretic from another era.
We need a new punk band: “Dead Heretics”
(although the kennedys would probably still fit in. :>)
And you have none? Coming from a minister...amusing indeed. Ego eimi in John 9:14 is not "I am." Learn Greek.
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4
Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. Psalms 91:4
John 9:14 doesn’t have “ego eimi” in it at all. Keyboard error?
However, It IS “I am” wherever it shows up unless your contention is that there are synonyms for “ego” and for “eimi” that can be used side by side.
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.