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.
His miracles testify of Him, and the miracles of the Church testify of Him and that they are His.
If you read the NT, you’ll notice that it wasn’t a miracle a minute, not even with Jesus, and not also after the day of Pentecost. But the signs followed them. And to those who were watching they opened their minds.
“Signs followed them” also doesn’t mean a miracle a minute, nor a bunch of Miracle Maxes. In fact, the words indicate targeted miracles.
So you are looking for a group of believers in Jesus that has targeted, documented miracles.
When he tries to be, it is he that is irrational.
God created space, time, energy, matter, physical laws, logic, reason. He is not described by to limited to the things He created.
A rational man, realizing that all of these things would apply in his quest to "prove" God, would instantly lay down his naturalist toolkit of sensory perception and reason and fall to his knees in prayer asking God if He exists, please reveal Himself.
One of the ancient manuscripts in Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha tells a backstory to Genesis 12 - the calling of Abraham.
In a nutshell, the story goes that Abraham's father was idol maker. And one day, one of his carved idols fell into the fire and burned up. Abraham was aghast thinking how could this be a "god" when it is consumed by fire.
His dad wasn't moved. He said that was the way the "god" gave him warmth and allowed him to prepare his meat. But Abraham, as the story goes, fell to his knees and asked God in prayer, if you really exist please reveal yourself to me.
Moreover, when a man deliberately denies God, God gives him over to a reprobate mind.
The Old and New Testaments are full of examples of "miracles" whose sole purpose is to convince the Jews and the readers in physical and visible terms that God is God and that Jesus is God, or at least the Son of God (in the Jewish sense of the word).
So this "take it on faith only" and God-is-not-susceptible-to-proof-is a later-day development that contradicts everything that's in the Bible.
Which is the entire point of the observation, "Man is not the measure of God."
No but the biblical God obviously wanted man to understand him in human concepts and in human words.
Plus God is not "my" (or "their") God. He is One God expressing as three Persons eternally, universally
That is your God, betty boop. Jews and Muslims do not consider that their God.
Of course not. But here you are conflating the physically phenomenal with spiritual reality. That a person is born physically blind and/or deaf has nothing to do with his spiritual inheritance from his Father. Physical blindness/deafness is not the issue here. There is no excuse/justification to reject God on such grounds. For the eyes and ears of the soul are still in full play — unless they are rejected as sources of Truth.
I'm aware that Orthodox and Reformed views often seem to conflict. But to me, they are simply different ways of seeing the One God — which visions, if abetted by the Holy Spirit, cannot be said to be untruthful.
So you are looking for a group of believers in Jesus that has targeted, documented miracles.
"Documented" by anonymous writers...with no physical or other evidence of their occurrence or results. Taken on faith alone.
Again, Jesus healed the sick and did a quick water-into-wine trick as a proof of his divinity. It wouldn't work today. Resurrecting a putrefied body and moving Mt. Sinai might. That would out an end to all doubts real quick and the whole world would come to worship the God of Abraham instantly.
Why do you compare works of the law with works produced for temporal gain? What temporal gain is to be expected for, say, loving one's neighbor or obeying one's parents? I assume you would put actual or quasi-altruistic works in the category of those that are salvific, however, my examples are often (but not always) done for that reason and so how can we make a distinction? I don't see any Biblical distinction being made. For example, I might obey my father and mow the lawn. It could either be because he asked me to, or because we agreed he would pay me $20. In either case I am obeying the Law, but no Biblical distinction is made as far as I can tell between one being salvific and the other not. The point of Gal. 2:16 is that neither of these cases is salvific but that it is faith that matters.
I don't have to "take it on faith only" when the entire Creation is screaming, "God made me!!!" God gave four revelations: Holy Scripture, the Incarnation of Christ, the "Book of Nature" (i.e., the creation itself) and the Holy Spirit with us. You, dear kosta, act as if there were only one revelation — the one given in human language. And even that you have reduced to a dead doctrinal reading. Just so much language to be manipulated into supporting your own preconceptions regarding the fictionality of God, and the futility of the Christian religion. Or so it seems to me. Sigh....
I’m just reporting the facts, Kosta, about what the bible says. How an individual deals with or interprets it is in their corner.
I think I’ve studied it enough to have it right.
Nay, not so. Feeling hunger does not require the acknowledgment of the existence of food or the ability to detect it. The hungry person may not in fact, feel the sensation of hunger at all but only that something is needed that they lack.
“In order to know who he is one would have to know what he is first, what is divinity.”
Why? The family dog knows who I am. He recognizes me when I walk into the yard apart from all other humans and animals.
He knows me as Master, his superior. he knows me as Food Provider, etc.
But most of what I am is utterly incoprehesible to him. That I have parents or siblings, that I age or get headaches or that my brain functions with a whole different set of symbols and information inputs than his does.
He knows nothing of my chemistry or mental abilities only that my odor is unique to me.
He doesn't need to know any of these things for us to function together or be quite satisfied anymore than I need to know how God can exert power on matter and say, “Let light come to be” in order to detect Him.
“We can, and did, however, make one up in our minds, usually in heavily anthropomorphic terms.”
How else would we conceive of something except with the mental pictures available to us? How better to say God is aware of something than to say He knows or sees? That He moves than to say He walks? Or that He acts in our behalf than to say He loves?
The chemist describes the spatial orientation of electrons as “orbits” around the nucleus knowing full well that they do not orbit the nucleus at all but rather that this is concept that in our everyday experience give us a useful picture of a reality we cannot experience.
“It's like that dog whistle only dogs can hear but we can't.”
But we can know that the dog does hear by his reactions. I should assume the whistle doesn't work or even exists because I can't hear it?
Yes, fear and ignorance is universal but so is knowledge and fearlessness.
And every human endeavor is a human endeavor, what else might it be? A martian endeavor? That hardly excludes God.
And I daresay this is the central problem of our age, the source of its manifest disorder — culturally, politically, socially....
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your oh! so beautiful essay/post!
INDEED TO THE MAX.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOURS AND BETTY’S VIGOROUS, STALLWART. BIBLICAL, ACCURATE STAND FOR TRUTH.
Choosing. An act of will. Therefore unique to man. No way to get around this plain, simple fact.
But this decision makes the man during his life, and at his death colors his soul before the seat of divine Judgment.
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding observations. I probably don't need to mention that I agree with you 100 percent.
Thank you from my heart, dear brother in Christ, for your kind words.
The only Freepers I've met who believe in strong determinism were atheists, believing the universe unfolds involuntarily with neither first cause nor final cause. If one knew the initial conditions and rules, one could project every detail of the universe throughout time.
Logically, part of that belief is that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen.
In other words, no man is personally responsible for his actions. The person is an illusion. No mind, no soul, no spirit - all illusions. The brain did it, physically and involuntarily.
I have not yet met a Reformed Freeper or any other Christian Freeper who testified to such beliefs.
As with Faith and Works, the Predestination and Free Will debate among Christians is a matter of balancing scales. As for me the bottom line is this:
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
kosta50:In other words, driven by insecurity (fear) and ignorance.
But the civilized man understands that he doesn't "belong" here.
Plato comes to mind.
Or he reasons there must have been a first cause and a final cause and therefore, he seeks.
Martyr comes to mind.
Thank you for all of your wonderful essay-posts!
When did God exactly become transcendental?
In Christianity, at least as early as St John Damascene and other giants in Christian theology. Certainly today, a transcendent God is fundamental to Christian theology.
What difference is there if we call it God, pink unicorns on Jupiter, Snow White, or Santa; it's still a presumption.
Logic itself relies on presumptions, self-evident truths, axioms, etc. It cannot even begin a solid "proof" without one. So, presumption alone is not a disqualification for knowledge or proof.
The physical world, even your strawberry test, is our only litmus meter because we are physical beings
But we are not only physical beings. We also have intellect and consciousness. So, I'd amend it to: personal experience - whether physical or mental etc. is our means of best knowledge. Whether it be the taste of strawberries or a logical proof or a moral axiom.
And what proof other than our subjective impression do we have that it "tastes good?"
None, other than agreement with others. But hard objective proof? None. Some things we can only know subjectively. It's still knowledge.
It is on me to prove that pink unicorns exist on Jupiter, not on anyone who doubts that.
I agree which is why I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of God. I believe something exists and further that something likely will be found by others who continue seeking knowledge. But in this regard I can't give my knowledge to them. It's like the strawberry in that regard.
There's an intellectual side to it, but you run past intellectual utility after a while. Like trying to describe a taste or logically prove "strawberries taste good." It's interesting but you're not going to get there from here IMHO.
The father of logic, Aquinas, gave it as good a go as any but his first cause argument is quite limited in scope as far as "proof" of God.
I'm sure you're aware of the Orthodox objection to applying logical proofs to this and the Eucharist for example.
How do you know it exists if we don't have the "tools"?
I said that if the transcendent exists, you can't, by definition use the tools of physical science and reason/logic alone to know it. These, again, are not the only means we have to know.
And a subjective experience is, shall we say, as much relative as it is unreliable.
We should use everything we have to increase our knowledge, whether it be taste, smell or working through a geometric proof using a physical model. We can't avoid subjective knowledge; we're not objects separate from reality, we are part of reality. Direct personal experience, subjective, is a bigger part of how we really know what we know than you're aware of perhaps.
Wait a minute! :) We say that works flow from true faith and are evidence of it. We believe in perseverance of the saints. IOW, in essence faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Without true faith there are no true works, and (under normal circumstances) one either has and does both or neither. So, we do not have the sense of separation that I interpret you describing above. Indeed, it is the Catholic side which seems to split faith and works into two separate categories. It is Catholics who allow for the general possibility of true faith without works (and even vice-versa), not the Reformed. So, if I'm following you I agree that this treatment is found no where in the Gospel. :)
I wasn't talking about physical blindness, but spiritual.
To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. [Matthew 13:11]
Lack of spiritual eyes and ears is idetermined by God, accoridng to your scriptures. he is the one who withholds these gifts. Not only that, but those who are impoverished will become more impoverished and those who have in abundance shall have even more.
For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. [Matthew 13:12]
This is all very gnostic. Your God determines who knows and who doesn't. It has nothing to do with your will. He makes sure of that.
Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [Matthew 13:13]
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.