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.
That's the only way you know about it, through human language. As Craig Lee Duckett says in his Descending Babel "Everything that we think we know or think we don't know is directly tied up in the knot of words and language."
Just so much language to be manipulated into supporting your own preconceptions
Ditto. Look how many books are written to support preconceived notions of believers.
To use Duckett's words again: "reality is voiceless and wordless, and the meaning of life isn't located in language."
That's pretty much what Austro-Hungarian doctors told Ignaz Semmelweis in their rejection of his proposed causes of the puerperal fever.
Absolutely correct A-G. As the scriptures teaches about faith:
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
No of course not. But that's not what I was saying. I wrote "if you can't detect something, you can't acknowledge its existence.” Thus if you can't detect hunger you won't know you are hungry. End stage syphilis patients lose their peripheral sensation and feel no pain in the limbs. Consequently they keep injuring themselves without realizing it.
[“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.
LOL. Your dog can see you. Can you see God? This is way too concrete. I was talking about essence or nature. We recognize humanity in an infant as much as we do in an elderly person, in a fetus, in men and women, etc. It is that which makes them human, not an object itself. We recognize a dog in a wolf, in toy breeds as well as in Great Danes and all the rest because we have a concept of what makes a dog dog and we can apply it to various shapes and forms. It's a "signature."
Similarly, we must know what makes God divine before we recognize that something is God or from God. Essence before form. Otherwise there is no way to differentiate between divine and profane.
["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?
That works for Disney characters. In other words, it's a God made in our image.
I should assume the whistle doesn't work or even exists because I can't hear it?
Unless you knew what kind of a whistle it was, assuming it doesn't work would be most likely because it doesn't work for you.
Jesus’ quote of Jer. 5:21 in vs. 13 says nothing about God preventing or taking away from anyone hearing or seeing, rather it is a statement of people's spiritual awareness.
Gnostic? Naw, Jesus explained his illustration in vss. 18-23. It really isn't all that difficult.
You can dress it up any way you want, A-G, the Reformed believe man cannot resist God's will. So, man has "free will" only from his POV as Forest Keeper would say. But in reality what man does is exactly according to God's plan and will.
The only Freepers I've met who believe in strong determinism were atheists
I suppose you didn't deal with Calvinists on that issue.
Logically, part of that [atheist] belief is that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen
When the brain functions stop, so does the mind. Therefore mind is an epiphenomenon, or better yet a product of the brain activity. Mind does cause things to happen but not magically. You don't bend spoons with your mind, but the mind can invent a tool that does.
The person is an illusion. No mind, no soul, no spirit - all illusions. The brain did it, physically and involuntarily.
I have to admit I have not met too many atheists who think that way. Come to think of it, none!
You know, the same is true of pink unicorns on Jupiter. You must believe they are... :)
This is an attribute of the people, who hope, believe and are not given proofs.
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Let us stand back and look at this in context.
James 2: 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Our works and faith are manifestations of our salvatiion. Faith is the assurance that we are truly saved and good works are the natural result of that faith.
Negative. Faith is what we believe; and the works are how we show it to both God and man.
We know we are saved because we can look inward and realize that we believe.
Negative again. Belief is not knowledge. Paul writes extensively on the hope of salvation (Romans 2: 4 Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. )
1 Thessalonians 5: 8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love and the helmet that is hope for salvation. 9 For God did not destine us for wrath, but to gain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live together with him. 2 11 Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, as indeed you do. 12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, 13 and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 We urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, cheer the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one returns evil for evil; rather, always seek what is good (both) for each other and for all. 16 Rejoice always. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.
If one was being frogmarched to Heaven, then these verses are meaningless. They are only applicable to those who have the free will to choose or reject God.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
I am going to ask friend Kosta to comment on this. Several articles that I have seen indicate that that tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 is to be interpreted in the middle voice to describe a human act where people marshaled themselves over a several-day period of time in order to meet at the synagogue to hear Paul preach again about justification by faith apart from the Law, and thus believe in Christ and receive eternal life.
If that is so, then Acts 13:48 does not teach a divine predestination unto faith in the Gospel.
We can't activate our faith any more than we can do good works without the divine direction of Christ.
Agreed.
We know we are saved because we can see Christ working through us in the simpliest ways.
Negative. I would say that Gandhi's works have surpassed 95% of all Christians, yet would you call him saved?We are appointed to believe.
A rigourous examination of the Greek indicates otherwise - I would ask Kosta to concur.
We will cast our crowns at His feet because He does it all.
You've got to get to heaven first and be one of the Twenty Four. This seems very arrogant, since there are more than 24 Calvinists on FR alone. Which ones are of the 24, if I may ask?
A little late, don't you think? I mean, 800 years after Christ...
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.
Unless it is trying to prove something real. Outside of geometry, I can't think of too many self-evident truths that would apply to the real world with certainty, but I am saying this wihtout giving it much thought, so I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.
Besides, pure logical "proofs" are not real proofs but theorems or working models.
But we are not only physical beings. We also have intellect and consciousness
They are not sui-generis existence, but epiphenomena of the nervous system.
Whether it be the taste of strawberries or a logical proof or a moral axiom.
Talk about mixing categories and lumping them all in one basket! What is a moral "axiom" anyway?
Some things we can only know subjectively. It's still knowledge
You are using "knowledge" as awareness. What we are aware of are called "feelings." A strawberry "tastes good" because its meat gives us a pleasing/satisfying feeling (meaning we want to extend it or repeat it ad nauseum). We don't know why a strawberries "taste good." It's not knowledge (as in rational knowledge); it's awareness.
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.
Behavior that repeats itself is defined as "feels good." It's an inference, not a proof. The only way to "prove" something tastes good is to ask an individual if it does. And that is an investigative proof rather than logical.
I'm sure you're aware of the Orthodox objection to applying logical proofs to this and the Eucharist for example.
Yes, of course. The Orthodox would never postulate something like 'transubstantiation.' To them, divine mysteries are God's secrets not meant to be understood by humans. In other words, Orthodoxy firmly believes, without going into the details and mechanics as to how, that the bread and wine are ontologically changed by the Holy Spirit following the humble petition of the priest. (See epiclesis).
The saints of the Catholic Church are not dead people, and Our Father is not the only prayer allowed. St. Paul will pray for you.
God indeed has quickened His Church but that does not mean you should disregard the command to walk in the good works that are prepared for you, for the purpose of your salvation.
Exactly: acts of love such as love toward our neighbor are salvific works, the "good works that we should walk in". If one does it because there is a law compelling him then it ceases to be salvific and becomes something done for a temporal reward.
Nope, he spoke in parables to the whole crowd (verses 1-9).
while those who were hard hearted, indifferent, or let other cares overtake their earlier acceptance would lose even those few seeds that fell upon their ground.
But the Bible tells us that hardening of the heart is God's doing. So, if their hearts were hardened it wasn't their will but God's will.
Gnostic? Naw, Jesus explained his illustration in vss. 18-23. It really isn't all that difficult.
Exactly, Gnostic. He reveals the mystery of the parable to a select few. Doesn't get much more Gnostic than that.
Certainty, again, depends on what level of knowledge you're after. You can apply logic to physics or philosophy. In general, the level of certainty in this direction goes down; in particular, it can vary. Understandably, at both end, the very big and the very small, certainty decreases.
However, your certainty is not a requirement for reality. For humans, certainty is a quality of knowledge, but not an limit on reality.
Besides, pure logical "proofs" are not real proofs but theorems or working models.
No, they're real proofs. That's what the tool of reason is best used for. Above pure empiric measurement, if you want to prove something is logically true - according to reason - you're required to have a tight, valid, deductive syllogism for it. Else your statement is unproven. You can have evidence, inference, beliefs, strong feelings, etc., but not proof in the strict requirements of formal logic.
My main point in our discussion is that this is the case with your philosophy, which could be described as your strict empiricism. It is not proven.
Worse it is logically inconsistent. You have a big logical contradiction in your position. The statement "only that which can be proven using science or logic alone is true" cannot be proven using science or logic alone. This is a performative contradiction. It's a point of failure for your axiom.
You can still hold to it of course, but no one else is required, logically, to hold it or be bound to treat it as true or proven.
I'll give you one thing, annalex. you ARE persistent. wrong, but persistent. And if persistency were required for salvation, you would be a shoe-in. Unfortunately for you, it isn't. But don't let that stop you in your pursuit of persistency.
Thx for your helpful exhortation.
The matter of miracles and how the NT portrays them is not much of an open debate anymore, but your take isn’t considered a valid one by anyone I know. It is, however, your free will choice to take it any way you like.
There are different groups that call themselves Reformed, but your take is pretty much on target. Nothing happens outside the will of God. That does not preclude you from having a will, though, and a choice IF the Creator made you with one. They say that He did, and that your destiny is set, nonetheless.
Some find that a great comfort and others find it something to be fought against. In any case, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.
What is the proof that all of this is true?
That we live in a universe in which self-identity had an origin and that universe is heading to a conclusion.
Well of course not. The meaning of life cannot be fully conceptualized in language. So what else is new?
What is Duckett's proposal to redress this apparent deficiency? Please 'splain this to me....
All of these revelations harmonize with such glory and power that words cannot describe it.
The problem is, you yourself have never seen a pink unicorn on Jupiter. Nor have I; and accordingly the fact is I don't believe in pink unicorns on Jupiter....
So why do you bring them on [in their abject absence!!!] as "best evidence" to support your claim(s)?
That problem will have to hold for another time; for I'm going to bed now.
God's blessings and sweet dreams to ALL this night and always!
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.