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.
poing=point
That seems to be an admission that you believe in neither since one of the two is pink unicorns. But, I think you've sort of said the same in other ways in the past.
You do, however, seem to be drawn to religious things. I think d'fendr noted that recently, and there's really no denying it.
Wonder why? What do you think?
The poing hasn't been gone long enough to be missed.
I give it its due when I see it.
PS I was a little confused with your replies. Now that you clarified it, please disregard my post #700 too.
A-G, is this sufficiently deterministic for you or do you still wish to make your case that only atheists have deterministic views?
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." -- Isaiah 46:10-11"Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?" - Ecclesiastes 7:13
I think it’s you who’s missing the poing now.
See post 683.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2546145/posts?page=683#683
My interests are Church and Bible history. Theological arguments, theories, well up I suppose as natural offshoots of that work.
For example I just discovered today that Act 13:48 in the Latin Vulgate Bible was altered under Augustine's (4th century) influence by inserting the prefix prae to the word ordinatti to conform the scriptures to Augustinian doctrine of predestination.
Thus, the verse reads praeoridnatti (pre ordianed, preset, prearranged) instead of simply arranged/ordained (oridantti) as it read before. Thus, more evidence of corruption of biblical manuscripts in the early Church for doctrinal reasons.
Fascinating. The things they didn't tell my in Sundays chool. :)
You are right I missed the poing... :)
So where did you learn that from? Wesley?
Quite possible. I will gladly read your link. Thank you. I inlcuded John Wesley only because I like the way he succintly summarized the non-Reformist view of Acts 13:48.
Early Church interpretation points towards a non-predestinaitonal interpretation of that verse. Lack of Patristic commenatries on that verse seems to confirm that the early church did not see it as problematic.
Actually it’s on Wikipedia under “Predestination.” I checked my version of the Vulgate. It’s late but tomorrow I will see if there is any other source that corroborates this.
Probably because the predestination of all that was and is and will be by the will and purpose of God was such a given in the early church. Many of those men had seen God in the flesh and witnessed the miracles firsthand. If you had seen Christ raise a dead man back to life how could you doubt God was in control?
It just makes sense, if God exists and really is who He says He is in Scripture.
From the moment of creation, all that was ever going to occur in this life on this earth (or anywhere else) was determined by God for His glory.
Or else it would be different.
We’re living God’s thoughts after Him.
Or else there is no God. There’s just you and me and them and dust and space and endless intersecting lines moving out towards who-knows-what.
One or the other. God, or else...
Interesting.
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
PRICELESS VERSES. THX THX. VERY PRICELESS AT THIS TIME.
WELL PUT.
WELL PUT.
HMMMMM
If you don't separate faith and good works, you wouldn't have the man-made dogma of salvation being by faith alone. Yet that is the cornerstone of Protestantism, an it sure separates faith from good works. Naturally, given the divisive slogan "faith alone", and given the fact that indeed some works are pronounced by the Bible to be not salvific, a ppor atholic like me has to get a bit analytical and discuss faith, good works, and works for temporal reward (lumping works of Jewish law, works for wage, and works for "boast" together) part by part.
This false doctrine has severe moral implications as it impedes sanctification through the contact with the Holy Gospel, the only means of sanctification that remains in the Protestant communities of faith. Had this false doctrine been rejected by the Protestants, they would be able to read the Gospel as written without the need for phoney hermeneutics to explain it away at nearly every verse. Had that doctrine been rejected, Protestant men would have been able to get on with their pious efforts rather than falling to the vice of presumption of their once-received salvation. This invention of Luther is a real menace of mankind. This is the menance that desecrated monasteries, ridiculed consecrated life, vandalized churches and lead nations to war with themselves. You cannot say it doesn't exist.
The separation between real faith and declared but empty (St. James says, "dead") faith is a valid distinction, you would agree. That is a distinctions often made by the Protestants as they try to justify the absurdities of "faith alone", see for example, my recent dialogue with Quix here.
The separation between good works and works done for temporal reward is also valid and is often made by St. Paul as he disputes with the judaizers in Galatians and with the nation-conscious Romans. That distinctions is lost on most Prtoestants given that I get about three posts per day on Galatians 2 and Romans 3 trying to "prove" Faith Alone.
The separation between real faioth and good works is heretical and is condemned at Trent:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. (The Sixth Session)
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.