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.
At the root of Judeo/Christian belief is knowing Who God Is.
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. - Matthew 22:42
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-18
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. –I Corinthians 12:3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3
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
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. – 2 John 1:7-11
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
But to us, they contain the words of God - they are alive. They are spirit and life.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
Moreover, man is not the measure of God.
And my testimony is this: That God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. And I've known Him for a half century and counting.
No biggie.
I agree
The first thing an anti-God, anti-Christ activist must do to unsettle a shallow-rooted Christian is to establish the rules of engagement.
Among these is to get the correspondent to accept the presupposition that God is a hypothesis, i.e. he constructs a strawman "god" to debunk. More importantly, by doing this he puts the shallow-rooted Christian in his own shoes, he gets him to see things through an atheist/agnostic lens.
From that observer perspective he can amplify any doubts that linger in the mind of a shallow-rooted Christian.
Another rule of engagement is the language itself, what the words shall mean and what words are to be allowed.
Chief among these words are the Names of God, e.g. I AM, for the hypothetical strawman "god" must not be personified in any sense. He must reduce the "Who is God" to a "What is 'god'."
And among the terms he must control are reality and objective truth. Both must be discernible by naturalist means, i.e. sensory perception and reasoning. If it cannot be discerned that way, under his rules of engagement, it goes into the "only knuckle-draggers swallow this" side of the table.
He demands that all words in the debate be universal in significance, meaning and usage. Anyone - whether atheist/agnostic or Christian - must receive the same words the same way, i.e. no difference between the words of a hypothetical "god" and the words of men and no difference between Christian and agnostic/atheist.
Anything that cannot be proven by empirical test or observation or logic is sorted to the knuckle-draggers side of the table. And of course spiritual discernment is not allowed at all.
By doing this, he makes his strawman "god" into a hypothetical man. He anthropomorphizes God into a small "god" a mortal can comprehend.
But naturalist means will not do.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
Doubting Thomas was an Apostle, too.
But I will not play by the anti-Christ's rules of engagement because God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
Excellent post, Sister Alamo.
There have been those skeptical of the Christian message from the beginning, but in these latter days, they have refined their rejection into sneers. I read recently about some sports announcers who run big-name sports talk programs. The writer had had a chance to sit in on one of their studio sessions in which they fielded questions over the phone. He was amazed he said that these announcers joked off mike about the stupidity of each and every caller. None were as smart as them. It was worse than that. All were cretins by their approach. The same with modern skeptics. Behind the scenes they don't just reject our message. The sneer at our God and at His Son. They hate us for our acceptance of this you write about, our "foolishness". Yet they engage us in debate realizing not that it is the Spirit of Christ giving them one more telling of the Gospel that His sacrifice, burial, and resurrection prove God has offered them the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ His Son. One more telling and once more. For some of them "almost but lost." For others He opens their hearts and they are saved.
But where in the Greek scriptures (not in doctrinally tainted translations) is "I am" used as a divine title? It is used about 1600-plus times in the NT alone to denote a subject and a predicate.
The one example she gives in the Garden of Gethesemane is obviously made up either by the interpolator or the author himself, for there would have been no reason to call for false witnesses to condemn Jesus.
Besides, John's Gospel already gives a whole bunch of information that contradicts other Gospel accounts, such as Jesus' alleged claim that he only taught publicly and never in secret (John 18:20), which is directly contradicted by Matthew 13;10-11, and so on.
Whoever had his hands in John's Gospel did try to associate the ego eimi with a divine title, but this is not supported by the rest of the Greek scriptures, just as John's claim in v. 18:20 does not correspond to Matthew's account in 13:10-11.
Some even suggest he is telling a THEOLOGICAL story....gasp....rather than a CHRONOLOGICAL story
Gasp? LOL. One can certainly make a valid case of it, for example, regarding the timing of the Last Supper that comes to mind.
“The mood is infinitive, cyc”
I'm no great student of Greek (I'll save all the trouble of saying that's obvious)’ but why infinitive?
“A Catholic might argue the same thing but for quite different reasons.”
In the Catholic teaching of the trinity there are three persons in one Godhead, Father, Son, Spirit.
So which of the three persons was speaking to Moses at Ex. 3:14?
Father? Son? Spirit? All three? Two out of three?
You see what I'm asking?
I take Ps. 2 as prophetic of the Christ, of Jesus, since I accept that he was the Christ. But if a person doesn't believe any of the Bible is prophetic then even a cursory reading is a waste of time.
Father? So
There is no such thing as the Judeao-Christian belief. That's like saying Christan-Mormon belief. Christianity and Judaism are mutually exlcusive. Ask any observant Jew.
Christians have borrowed, altered and reinterpreted many Jewish beliefs and scriptures, that much is obvious. That's about as far as it goes.
He certainly cannot discern Who God IS from text on papyrus. To him, “I am” is just “I am” – dead letters.
There is no standalone "I am" as a divine title in scripture, except in doctrinally tainted translations.
To the natural man, the Scriptures are just like any other ancient manuscript and are subject to his anthrocentric scrutiny. But to us, they contain the words of God - they are alive. They are spirit and life.
And your proof of such proposition is that some choose to believe it? So, if someone chooses to believe in pink unicorns on Jupiter does that mean they are real? Obviously some people think they are.
The words of men are neither spirit nor life. They are dead letters
That is about as convincing as saying all believers are hallucinating maniacs.
Moreover, man is not the measure of God.
What is God, Alamo-Girl? What one chooses to believe? Your God and Jewish God are mutually exclusive, incompatible. Your God and Allah are mutulaly exclusive and incompatioble. Everyonehas a "true" God thye claim.
And my testimony is this: That God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. And I've known Him for a half century and counting.
And my "testimony" is that he is. He "lives" in people's minds. His name is whatever men have decided to call him, but neither Hebrew nor Greek scriptures call him "I AM". And personal, anecdotal "evidence" is no proof. And repeating your self over and over will not make it a proof.
Paranoia will destroya...as they say. There is no strategy and no anti-Christ (except in some people's convoluted minds). It's just that some rational people will not sit idly and let others portay their fantastic stories, supsertitions, fanatsies, hallucinations, and what not as "facts"without a challenge to prove them as facts.
They just call their bluff.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. – Romans 11:11
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jer 31:33-37
God's Name is I AM.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. - Revelation 21:1-8
I see your point, but they justify this by grammatical rules. In other words, it can't be translated word-for-word, literally, but grammatically correct. I think most people take the middle road—if for no other reason than for the ease of reading—sometimes stretching the rules and sometimes opting for a more literal translation for a variety of reasons (doctrinal, personal taste, etc.).
I'm no great student of Greek (I'll save all the trouble of saying that's obvious)’ but why infinitive?
Because of the ending -mai. :) But it is difficult to argue that genesthai of John 8:58 should be interpreted as past tense any more than eimi should, when we have Matthew 24:6, Mark 1:17, Luke 9:36, John 1:12, John 13:19, etc. to suggest otherwise.
In the Catholic teaching of the trinity there are three persons in one Godhead, Father, Son, Spirit. So which of the three persons was speaking to Moses at Ex. 3:14? Father? Son? Spirit? All three? Two out of three?
The Creed leaves no doubt that it had to be the Holy Spirit ("he spoke through the Prophets").
I take Ps. 2 as prophetic of the Christ, of Jesus, since I accept that he was the Christ. But if a person doesn't believe any of the Bible is prophetic then even a cursory reading is a waste of time. Father? So.
For one, verse 7 makes no sense in that context (remember also this is supposed to be David's writing): "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son..." Who is saying this? Jesus?
Not to say anything of verse 9 "9'You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them like earthenware.'"
How Christ-like is that?
It's what people believe that matters, A-G. Without people there will be no religion, and then God, if there is such an entity, would have no one to save and nothing to do since his work was done on the seventh day! for all eternity. Who's want that?
Judaism and christianityare mutually exclusive. Jewish denial of Christ is anathema to the Christians and Christian affirmation of Christ as God is anathema to the Jews.
Mormons will tell you that they are Christians. Christians beg to differ. Mormons site their scriptures like just like the Christians site theirs to "prove" to the other side they are right.
Every groups claims their God is "true" and everyone else's God is "false"; every group sees something different in the scriptures even if they all read one and the same verses. The thread should prove my point.
Even members of the supposedly the same religion don't agree what their scriptures say,but call each other heretics and anti-Christs, idolaters and what not.
Just look at the venom that is being spilled daily here on these forums among people who all claim to be Christians, quoting from the same "holy books", and all that for the love of Christ.
To postulate God as an hypothesis is the first critical mistake the anti-Christ activist makes. (Though from his point of view, it is necessary.) The "shallow-rooted Christian" would probably not notice the activist is postulating God as if He were just another phenomenon of nature, just another entity in space and time, thus fully accessible to human observation, reason, and judgment in the first place.
Yet God is not subject to human reason. God created human reason. He also created space and time and matter. The master is not slave to that which he created. The categorical difference between the divine and the human is absolutely unbridgeable. All of human reason cannot bridge it.
Dearest sister in Christ, certainly you have aptly described the mentality of the anti-Christ position, and the techniques it uses to prevail in human discourse. But these "rules of engagement" are entirely false from the get-go. And I imagine that the person using such techniques is above all false to himself. That is, he does not grasp the essential point that he was made by God, in God's image.... And received the great divine gifts of reason and free will from God alone — which he then turns against his sublime benefactor....
So much of gratitude there!
I don't "hate" such people. I just find they aren't worth listening to. Beyond that, I pray God to fix whatever problem they have in their souls.... For the problem seems to be emanating from a soul that has lost its mooring in divine truth. For whatever reason.
JMHO FWIW
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your penetrating and astute observations!
Absolutely right, thanks AG! Concerning salvation, Reformation theology is strongly centered on the spiritual (grace through faith) as opposed to Apostolic faiths which are centered much more on men and the physical (water baptism and other physical sacraments, being within a particular Apostolic faith, performing a sufficient kind and quantity of physical deeds, spiritual submission to the extra-Biblical traditions of men, etc., all being necessary for salvation).
As you allude to, one great difference is where the focus is. Your statement above is correct because our focus is on the spiritual faith given to us by God through no merit of our own. From that given faith flow the words as evidence. Faith and salvation first, then words and deeds.
I see Apostolic faiths as holding to the opposite order. For them I see words, deeds, and submission to men all being the more important leaders to salvation, with spiritual faith being included, but not emphasized. The focus is on the physical first, and the state of the spiritual is always subject to the physical first. Salvation flows much more from the physical than the spiritual. Indeed, in some cases it appears that the spiritual is not even a requirement and that the physical alone can be a means to salvation. For example, from JOHN PAUL II -- GENERAL AUDIENCE -- Wednesday 9 September 1998
3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III). (emphasis added)
Even leaving aside the man-centered assertion that the Holy Spirit is present in prayers to false gods as long as they are authentic, I believe this goes FAR beyond the uncontroversial assertion that God can save the unchurched or the unreached. Here the focus is NOT on God touching people in unconventional ways with true but unconventional faith resulting. No, the focus here is on the SUBSTITUTION of following one's OWN conscience for having faith in the one and only true Christ. To me this elevates man's intentions alone to the same level as the true gift that is faith.
So interestingly, the idea that any magic words can save is much closer to the Apostolic faiths than to Reformation theology. :)
Yes it is rational to demand proof because otherwise we agree to believe hearsay, fantastic stories, superstitions, fantasies and hallucinations. Is that rational?
If someone were to appear before you saying "I am God" what would your reaction be? Would ask for a proof? Or would you fall flat on your face?
if, in fact, that “rational” person believes that no such “proof” can possibly exist?
I never said no proof can possibly exist (where did you pull this from—not form anything I wrote!). I am open to proofs—rational proofs. What else can a rational being expect? Irrational "proofs?"
Just one question, BB: a stranger tells you “I am God.” What do you do? Ask for proof or fall flat on your face?
The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. - Psalms 24:1
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? - Romans 9:21
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? - Matthew 20:15
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. - Romans 1:20-25
How irrational atheists are!
As betty boop pointed out, the root of the word "rational" is "ratio" - the relation between two things. There must be the standard against which the other is compared for a ratio to exist.
But by denying God, the atheist stands there alone fist raised in the air - meaningless, futile, irrelevant, irrational.
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. - Psalms 2:1-5
John was not like Peter who was not like James who was not like Thomas who was not like Paul, etc.
Jesus could have chosen twelve Peters or twelve Johns. But He didn't.
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.