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.
Why do you think you're an "ant???" I don't believe God regards you as such.
Gal 2:16
... contains the Catholic teaching that works of the law -- generally any works produced for temporal reward -- are not salvific. In dispute is the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which is in no way supported by your quote. See my previous post for some elaboration.
That is not “presumption”, but confidence in the finished work of Jesus.
St. Paul certainly did not encourage the vice of presumption, and Catholics do have peace with God and "confidence in the finished work of Jesus". But we do not consider outselves saved by any single act of faith; that is presumption, regrettably taught throughout Protestantism. "Hope" of course, inherently means that the outcome, in this case, of salvation, is conditional on something that we may or mey not be able to do. It is useful to think of your sanctification as building a temple out of yourself. You have all the materials on hand; you have money that the owner of the temple put in the bank. You know that if you follow the architect's plan you will complete the construction. But that is a big if: you yourself is but a humble builder who has frailties. This is why your hope in the success of the enterprise is moderated with the sobering thought that you are not at the end of the project yet. We "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) even though it is truly God Who is "working within us" by providing us with, metaphorically, plans and funds. Neither is it "wishful thinking" as we know what we need to do and are in principle capable of completing the project.
The confidence one may feel in his salvation, similar to the one so eloquently expressed by St. Paul on his way to martyrdom should not automatically apply to us who did not have such a severe test of our faith.
Purgatory is a man made construct
Since we see the essentials of it in 1 Cor. 9-15, you cannot say that. You can disagree with particular assertion of "intolerable suffering and agony"; some Catholics do as well. Since the pain of Purgatory is not of this world, we cannot describe it in clinical terms. But pain it is, hence the analogy of fire used by St. Paul; this pain is to be expected in one whose enter into heaven that he longs is delayed.
this suffering can be shortened and alleviated by the prayers and good works of the faithful on earth
Yes. Of course. We see multiple examples of people praying for others in the scripture, -- why do you find this particular form of intercession for our brother in Christ objectionable?
The doctrine of purgatory offers the false hope that man has a chance to be saved after death.
No; the soul in Purgatory has already been saved. This is why it is in Purgatory. Again, I invite you to first study the doctrine you attempt to criticize.
Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final
You mean particular judgment at death. Yes, it is, and the soul enters purgatory only if residual venial sin remains and after the particular judgment has been pronounced. It is a transitory state.
It rests on the false premises
These are not false promises as any student of scripture should know. For example, indeed man must add somethign to the work of Christ, that is what St. Paul teaches in Col. 1:24.
2 Macc. 12:43-45
My understanding is that it simply shows that praying for the dead was a Jewish practice, not that necessarily that particular prayer was eficacious. I did not bring that episode up, nor Luke 23:43. However, your objections are not based on correct understanding of what Purgatory is, and where you do have a limited grasp of it, you simply point out that the doctrine of purgatory contradicts Protestant theology, which it inarguably does. So abandon Protestant theology and listen to reason and to the Gospel.
Matt. 25 is a “millennial” parable, which is why there is no mention of the church. It explains how God will deal with the nations during the Millennium at the end of the age.
Calling a parable "millenial" does not negate its message, unless it is your belief that Christ justifies some group of people by faith alone, and also at the Millenium justifies some other group of people by their works in contradiction to the former. No matter where you want to place the second coming of Christ on your calendar, the judgment described in Matthew 25:31-46 is judgment by the works and applies to everyone. There is no mentioning of the Church because everyone, not only the Christians are thus judged.
Believe it or not, dear kosta50, but a person I once knew said exactly that. At that point, I knew he was a total moron.
Which obviated the need to ask him for proof. He had none anyway. My thought at the time: If he were "god," then the entire universe would fall from wrack and ruin and just positively destroy itself. So I didn't "fall flat on my face." I just got rid of the dude. Capice?
He was not fit for human company anyway. I don't know what happened to him subsequently. And I'm sorry you bring this person to mind. It is said his proper name is Legion....
If you believe the tale of a talking donkey you do. Or if you believe Jonah lived in a belly of a fish for three days you do, or if you claim the rain fall towards the heave, or anything man's fancy can produce, that's not in the rela world, you do.
If I get to define the terms I get to decide who is or is not rational.
It's not arbitrary. Otherwise I could tell you in all seriousness that pink unicorns on Jupiter are real because I believe in them, and so should you.
Even our hypotheses have to be rational. It doesn't mean they are true. But they must be based on something observable, detectable, repeatable, not subjective and not on something disocvered in a "trance" such as a "voice" from heaven spekaing to you...
Last night I heard a man say that billions and billions of galaxies came from a indefinable, dimensionless point and just might someday return there
It's a theory, and evolving one at that. It's based on evdience but the evidence is inconclusive. Cosmology is as much a belief as any other. UIt has it's own "theology" and even "orthodoxy," as well as "reformers" and "heretics."
He believed it or at least he seemed to accept it as fact. Did he have proof that convinces me? No. Nor would any proof he could offer be convincing.
I couldn't agree more.
Is he rational?
If he treats it as theory, yes he is. If he treats it as fact, he is not.
And if I thought him wrong it wouldn't mean either of us is not rational
No, because he doesn't know. He may believe it, but if he presents he faith as fact than he is not rational.
I don't know what my reaction would be but since I already have a strong bias against believing that this would occur I might ask for time to become familiar with the, the someone
Why do you have a strong bias against it? Scriptures say Christ appeared to many. Why not to you? he also says that whatever you ask shall be given to you.
Can you prove it?.....With proofs that I'll accept as rational?
No I cant' but it is you who alleged it, so I would expect you to provide the proof. I was merely expressing my doubt simnply because I don't think in such absolute terms as "no proof can exist". I don;t beieve that's true, so i owuld not say it. But I would like you to show me where I did, and if I did I would conede that my memory failed me, and that I did make such a statement against my better judgment.
If this is going to reduce to groundless accusations with the party being accused held guilty until proven innocent than all bets are off.
You made the allgeation, you provide evidence or retraction. Otherwise this exchange is over.
How could one offer a rational proof for a hullucination? Any so-called proof would by definition have to be irrational.
That is correct. So, let's leave hallucinations and fairy tales out of the picture and conetrate on the real world around us.
No talking donkeys, no voices from the sky, no three day camings out in a stomach of a fish, no sun standing still, etc. Otherwise pink unicorns, and a buch of gods are on the menu for serious consideration.
How are we created IN CHRIST?
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved:) and hath raised us up together and MADE US SIT TOGETHER IN HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST JESUS." (Eph. 2:4-6).
We are In Christ the moment we are saved. We are created IN CHRIST unto good works. Not for salvation, that has ALREADY HAPPENED.
I must urge you to pray to God for understanding. The answers are there. They have been there all along. You just need to SEE what God plainly SAYS.
With all due respect, how does this have anything to do with ego eimi being a sacred title?
If it is claimed as a mater of fact, yes. If it is treated as a hallucination, insanity, dream, fanbtasy, fiction, what have you, even a simple a priori blind belief, then no.
For if I make a statement of fact (such as "I can fly on my own," or "I am God" or "there is an angel in this room" or "the world will end on such and such a date" or "my dog can talk", etc.) you will ask me for a rational, verifiable proof. If you tell me there is God, I will ask you for proof; you bet.
Therefore, when you responded, "Not anywhere in the Bible. God never says anything like that" to Alamo Girl's statement that the words "I am" were spoken by the Creator of "all that there is," I gave you the words of God in Colossians 1 which defines Christ as the Creator of "all things" and "by whom all things consist."
"All things."
Therefore, your remark that "God never says anything like that...not anywhere in the Bible" is false.
First, I'm not attempting here to convince you God exist. I am pointing out that your basis for your position anti is logically flawed.
If you tell me there is God, I will ask you for proof; you bet.
And if you tell me that only that which can be known and proven by reason logic is real - exists - then I will ask you for your logical proof of that statement.
If the Bible is inspired then it was the HS speaking to the prophets. Or else the Creed is a lie. From the Symbol of Faith (aka "Nicene Creed")
The Spirit is YHWH God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob according to the Creed? Where does that leave God the Father?
According to the Trinitarian dogma of the Church God is one simple and indivisible monad who in the economy of our slavation revealed himself as three divine realities of hypostases (not "persons").
Accoridng to the Triniatrian dogma, there is never a time when the Father or the Son were without the Spirit or the Spirit without the Father or the Son, or the Son without the Spirit or the Father. All three divine realities are co-equal, co-eternal and of one essence.
It is not that the Father was "somewhere" else (God is everywhere, so no need to look up), it is that the divine reality we call the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (i.e. inspired them).
I won't make that leap. The discussion of Jesus’ age, etc leads me to believe that Jesus is saying pretty much what it appears he is, that he existed before Abraham.
I don't blame you. I am on the same page, but your interpretation is grammatically flawed because ego eimi cannot be translated as present indicative, which is the way it is translated.
I think it had to do with God laughing at his beloved creatures form way above...
Well, can you blame the Pharisees then?
The physical world is our proof. If we can't all see it, detect it, measure it, feel it, it is not provable. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist; just not provable.
The problem with religious "proofs" is that one cannot differentiate them from hallucinations, fancy, dreams, fantasy, etc.
If you tell me "I saw God" neither you nor I can verify it. I would probably ask you how did you know it was God, and proceed from there.
Not everything that is logical and reasonable is real either.
Your reductionism has accidentally reduced out reason logic itself here - The rules of formal logic cannot be detected by the senses, has no "size" or "location" cannot be measured with a ruler, felt, etc.
What you have described accurately is that which can be proven by science - that which can be detected by the senses (and their extensions) and has size quantity, simple location, etc.
If I tell you something exists that has the qualities - size, simple location, sense detection, etc. - then the proof for this would require the tools of science, rightfully so.
If, however, I tell you something is a logical truth, then the instruments of science, physical science, are of no use. Formal logic is required to follow the requirements of proof here.
As far as what we "know" and the level of knowing (rock solid physical versus philosophic debates and formal logic), we necessarily apply the proper tools - in order to avoid category errors. Errors such as using theology to determine scientific truths or, in the opposite direction, using physical science to determine morals or ethics.
God, by all major religious definitions transcends - is transcendent. This means transcends physical science - has no simple location, size, sense detection, measurability, etc. And it means transcends reason/logic.
My point is that your requirement of reason/logic for proof that anything transcendent exists is a classic category error.
This doesn't prove the transcendent exists, but only that you cannot know one way or the other using physical science or reason logic alone.
Your argument could be proven if you could use formal logic, deductive, to prove nothing exists that cannot be known either by physical science or reason/logic. The problem with this I described earlier.
Not everything that is logical and reasonable is real either.
And, it's not proven that only that which is known by reason logic is real.
The problem with religious "proofs" is that one cannot differentiate them from hallucinations, fancy, dreams, fantasy, etc.
A couple of points. First, I've described the problem with religious proofs in general. They resist, by definition, the use of our more basic, solid, firm, tools of knowing.
Second, we are not quite as lost as you make it seem. In the extreme, I'll agree with the problem of hallucinations. But in the extreme, our whole reality could be a hallucination, including what we experience as "true."
We're not totally lost for verification however. While not the same as using our senses to agree there's a dog in the yard, we can verify our experiences of the divine with others. We can look at the writings of various experiential religious writers and compare. We can also separate out the psychotic and insane and physically damaged and so on.
No, this is not scientific or logic proof. See above. My point is we can apply some tests, some judgement, we're not completely lost here. But we are in a category that is not possible to prove with rock certainty to others.
If you tell me "I saw God" neither you nor I can verify it. I would probably ask you how did you know it was God, and proceed from there.
That's pretty much what spiritual practice is about. However, it requires some common basis in experience and is difficult to describe in words.
Not the best situation for a positivist, but the world is the way it is, and we are the way we are.
thanks for your reply.
Yes indeedy I can: They were"bean-counters": They had no faith.
I think you and Richard Dawkins should just "get a room." You both seem to think that God is "laughing" at you.
Why is that?
That’s pretty nice - Betty; Thanks.
“””Christ showed that the commonest sinner could do it.”””
This is what I said:
“Is it rational to demand proofs for “their fantastic stories, supsertitions, fanatsies, hallucinations, and what not...” if, in fact, that “rational” person believes that no such “proof” can possibly exist?
And here is a comment you made about religious proofs:
“The problem with religious “proofs” is that one cannot differentiate them from hallucinations, fancy, dreams, fantasy, etc.” (made to D-fendr post #573)
So I stand by what I said and if you take personally..well, that's not my fault.
I see all sorts of assertions made without a speck of proof, Jonah living in the belly of a whale three days is a “fantastic tale”. Where is your proof that it is a “fantastic tale”?
“So, let's leave hallucinations and fairy tales out of the picture and conetrate on the real world around us.”
Why? You've been using those terms quite freely. No, let's not.
“Is he rational?
If he treats it as theory, yes he is. If he treats it as fact, he is not.”
What proof is there the person is not rational? Why by what and whether he believes something or just allows it is a theory.
“If this is going to reduce to groundless accusations with the party being accused held guilty until proven innocent than all bets are off.”
“No, nothing I believe is a fantastic tale.
If you believe the tale of a talking donkey you do. Or if you believe Jonah lived in a belly of a fish for three days you do, or if you claim the rain fall towards the heave, or anything man's fancy can produce, that's not in the rela world, you do”
Grounds? None.
But those cite religious proof are being groundlessly accused:
“The problem with religious “proofs” is that one cannot differentiate them from hallucinations, fancy, dreams, fantasy, etc.”
Grounds? None. So, In your own words,
“You made the allgeation, you provide evidence or retraction. Otherwise this exchange is over.”
“No talking donkeys, no voices from the sky, no three day camings out in a stomach of a fish, no sun standing still, etc. Otherwise pink unicorns, and a buch of gods are on the menu for serious consideration.”
Why? Because they can't be differentiated from “ hallucinations, fancy, dreams, fantasy, etc.”?
Well, maybe God tested you the way Jesus tested the Pharisees, and you called him a moron. Where was your faith?
A logical "truth" is meaningless unless it can be applied to the real world. Saying 2 + 2 = 4 is meaningless if you have nothing that corresponds to real numbers (such as two sets of two apples each). You don't create reality from abstraction. You verify or dismiss the abstraction through relaity.
The first thing any thinker does is apply his abstract logic to the real world to see if it corresponds to the observed reality. If it doesn't, it proves nothing. Abstract logical "truth" is as good as thin air.
God, by all major religious definitions transcends - is transcendent
That is by assumption, and that is true only of some religions, mainly Christianity influenced by pagan Greek Platonic thought. Other religions do not see God as anything transcendent. Those who believe God is "nature" certainly don't. The Jewish God was imminent and close. Christianity made him a distant and unknowable Logos, with a human face, something the Greeks could very well relate to—a human looking God.
This means transcends physical science - has no simple location, size, sense detection, measurability, etc. And it means transcends reason/logic
So do my pink unicorns on Jupiter. All you have to do to prove it to yourself is believe it with all your heart and mind.
You can also arrive at the conclusion that you are Napoleon Bonaparte by the same method.
My point is that your requirement of reason/logic for proof that anything transcendent exists is a classic category error
I understand that very well, but there is no category error because God is presented as real and physically present in the world. Just read the Old Testament. Therfore he should be demonstrable in real physical terms.
This doesn't prove the transcendent exists, but only that you cannot know one way or the other using physical science or reason logic alone
I totally agree. In which case the whole thing becomes a tale, and I odn't mean that as an insult. I fully understand that tales are not subject to scientific and logical proof. They are okay as long as they are presented as what they are —tales.
We can's "disprove" the Snow White because there are no talking mirrors. But we run into a problem when someone begins to insist that the tale actually happened, that talking mirrors do exist, etc. Such claims actually require some sort of a proof because they appeal to the physical reality of the tale yet dismiss reality and logic as a factor for proof.
Your argument could be proven if you could use formal logic, deductive, to prove nothing exists that cannot be known either by physical science or reason/logic. The problem with this I described earlier
Depends what you mean by "known." If you mean to say "aware of" (awareness), then of course physical science and logic are not the only way we "know." There are other types of "knowledge."
But I don't think awareness is knowledge. Awareness does not connect the dots; reason does. And to know something you need to connect the dots. Otherwise you are just aware of it.
And, it's not proven that only that which is known by reason logic is real
We all know what reality is even though some pretend it is itself an abstract. Some things we just don't test, and we all agree on; no philosophy 101 needed. And it unfailingly involves reason and logic, the dots...
No one in his right mind will leap off a tall building, jump into the fire, or let me talk them into letting me shoot them with a .22 in the head —or anywhere for that matter—just because it's a "useless" caliber.
But in the extreme, our whole reality could be a hallucination, including what we experience as "true."
But there is a remarkable agreement across the board on such things as leaping off a tall building, fire, or getting shot. So if it is a hallucination, it is a well synchronized one! :)
Why don't we call reality "synchronized mass hallucination"? It still defines what we "know" as real. And if all this is a hallucination, and that's a big if, then maybe there is no such a thing as reality adn we really don't exist! LOL!
But who cares. People have lived in this 'hallucination' as far back as we can tell, and the animals, and other living beings seem to share in it as well. That's just the way the world is. I am not going to pretend that this doesn't exist or that fire is not hot or that .22 bullets will not hurt.
While not the same as using our senses to agree there's a dog in the yard, we can verify our experiences of the divine with others.
I would consider that a valid argument if it were something that was not preconditioned or learned, but sui-generis idnetical experience. No one, out of a clear blue has the whole gospel downloaded Paul style in an instant. It's learned. And depending on that learning your mind seems to conform to a specific pattern.
Catholics tend to see apparitions; Protestants will have "revelations," etc. It is learned, and varies form sect to sect.
But we are in a category that is not possible to prove with rock certainty to others.
I understand that, and I don't mean to come across as condescending or anything like that, although it's difficult to deal with something that is essentially a tale and discuss it as if it were real. It's like having a serous discussion about Santa's flying reindeer, if you know what I mean, and pretending that reindeer can actually fly.
Well, anyway, I think you understand my dilemma better than others, and I appreciate your patience with me. I do understand your arguments. But I hope you understand that you are logically defending the illogical. All the best.
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.