Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

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.

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.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ! And I daresay this [reprobate mind] is the central problem of our age, the source of its manifest disorder — culturally, politically, socially....

I very strongly agree!

This passage reads like the headlines of any metro newspaper these days:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. - 2 Timothy 3:1-5

God's Name is I AM.

Many of the things we acknowledge the existence of we know not by detecting the thing itself but by its effects.
How does one experience gravity except by its effects upon us.

But perhaps it's the definition of detect that we differ on.

Too concrete? O.k. We recognize humanity in an infant not by a single characteristic but by a whole collection of characteristics that taken as a whole makes humans human, that are peculiar to humans as group. We recognize “self”.

“That works for Disney characters. In other words, it's a God made in our image”

The Disney characters didn't make their craftsmen. Disney characters cannot reflect upon a creator and what he might be like. And we can only describe the position of electrons and the nature of God with the mental concepts, pictures available to us. It doesn't mean we made either.

There are aspects of God's nature that our intellects and hearts will never be able to completely grasp, what Godness truly and fully is, so we work with what we have.
And what we have is how He describes Himself. Creator, spirit, superlative wisdom, ayer asher ayer, etc. and the influence He exerts.

“LOL. Your dog can see you. Can you see God?”

My behavior means more to him than simply seeing me.

“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.”

But I do know what sort of whistle it is and why I can't hear.

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.

It seems to me you may be annoyed because you cannot command God to do your bidding.

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9:22-24

He IS God. You're not.

The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. - Psalms 24:1

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

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11

God's Name is I AM.

Didn't mean to ignore the conversation, but I'm one of those cursed with having to actually work for a living.

In a previous post you quoted Duckett:

"reality is voiceless and wordless, and the meaning of life isn't located in language."

The reality you are looking for is that Spirit behind the word and the thing the word names. We Christians call it "Logos" and it is The Christ.

In The Logos, we have the name, the thing itself and that which causes the thing to be what it is.

No doubt you have heard the concept. I had too, but it was just a bunch of empty words until that instant when the reality of it was "downloaded" into not just my brain, but every fiber of my being.

I know the pain you are feeling, and the cynicism that tears at your soul. God is speaking to you now, but you are trying to drown Him out the same way A.J. Ayer (no doubt a hero of yours?) did in his seminal work "Language, Truth and Logic."

Interestingly enough, Ayer himself had a Near Death Experience shortly before his actual death. Of course, no one but Ayer and God know the true state of his soul at the moment of his death, but he did make this interesting statement after the NDE:

"...what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief".

Sounds to me like old Alfred was trying to hedge his bets, don't you think?

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

We can't activate our faith any more than we can do good works without the divine direction of Christ.

Indeed.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:4-5

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

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.

I very strongly aver that no thing and no one can thwart the will of God.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. - Matthew 3:9

The will of God also includes freedom of movement both physically and mentally.

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. – Luke 19:40

After all, men can walk but not teleport. Man can choose among finite options but not infinite possibilities unknowable to him.

And so again I say that Reformed theology as I understand it is not equivalent to the atheist's strong determinism which says the universe unfolds involuntarily, that the mind, soul and spirit are illusions which cannot cause anything to happen.

And if I am wrong on Reformed theology, I'm sure they'll let me know.

God's Name is I AM.

And FK would be correct. As Paul reminds us...

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6

Either God is in control of His creation, by the very nature that God has revealed to us of Himself in Scripture for His own perfect purpose and glory, or there is no God and the Bible is all fiction and we are autonomous, free-willing atoms hurling through time and space with only our own thoughts to consume us.

It's one or the other.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

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.

Precisely so!

I don’t find God in control of everything to be frightening at all. It is sort of comforting, to be honest with you.

I do worry about those He didn’t “foreknow (and) predestinate”, but that’s not my pay grade, and the truth is that I’d worry about the lost in any case, because of God’s foreknowledge. On the other hand, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So, where are we left? The lost are the lost in any case. My proclamation role is the same in any case. My impact is exactly what God has determined and/or foreseen it will be; no more and no less.

As for Kosta50? He’ll come around or he won’t. He’s a sheep or he’s a goat. God knows.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and testimony, dear sister in Christ, and thank you for those beautiful Scriptures!

If man has no freedom of movement in Reformed theology, then it is very close to strong determinism with the apparent exception that it does not consider the mind, soul and spirit to be an illusion even though it would agree that none of those can cause anything to happen.

I agree with you on everything, dear brother in Christ, except that I do not worry about the lost.

Everything is God's to do with according to His own will. It is wonderful that He saves any.

Then again, I do not have your calling to minister but rather to encourage.

At any rate, I am certain that no one and no thing can thwart the will of God.

God's Name is I AM.

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.

No anti-Catholic is the arbiter of right and wrong. And I am certain that nowhere did Annalex say that persistence was required for salvation. Christ Jesus, Risen Son of the Living Almighty God is sufficient, and HE knows who is "right" and "wrong." Where did any protestant get the authority to judge? That's hilarious!

Nope, he spoke in parables to the whole crowd (verses 1-9).

Jesus tells us why He spoke in parables -- so that those whom God had been given ears to hear and eyes to see would be able to understand Him. And those whom God had not given ears to hear nor eyes to see would remain in the darkness of their own vanity.

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" -- Mark 4:11

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." -- Luke 8:10

If Christ had intended to save everyone instead of just His sheep, He could have given everyone an equal chance to hear Him, understand Him and obey Him.

But He didn't.

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." -- John 10:26-28

What is the greater miracle? That God has determined to save you specifically and particularly and personally by the sacrifice of His Son, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, no matter what, or Christ merely offers you a chance to spend eternity with Him but you must use your own facilities to decide your salvation?

Where's the free, unmerited gift in that? That is debt, not mercy.

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.