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.
And satan said to the woman, “You shall not surely die ... you shall be as gods ...” I wonder, have you ever read int eh scripture where works are described as filthy rags when compared to the Grace of God in Christ on the Cross for you? You cannot work your way to such perfection of purpose as God achieved in Christ on the Cross.
AG: He may have an excuse for not knowing Who God IS
Kosta: Sorry, if you can't detect something, you can't acknowledge its existence. Assuming that God gave "detection tools" only to some, only they would "detect God" and acknowledge that he is. It's like that dog whistle only dogs can hear but we can't.
AG was distinguishing between knowing THAT God is and knowing WHO God is. Using your example, we humans can look at a dog whistle and know THAT it is. It exists. We can't hear it, though. I thought that what AG was saying was that since we all observe and experience creation we all can know THAT God is and so none is with excuse for not knowing. However, only those who have appropriated God's grace (the mechanics are not relevant here) are able to HEAR Him (knowing Him on a personal level). So, some are able to hear the whistle and some are not, but all can see the whistle. Different detection tools detect different things. God gives some detection tools to all for some things and other tools are only appropriated from God by some for other things.
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
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:7-10
I think you just agreed with Kosta.
I agree, B-D. Excellent post about Cyrus.
And yes.....definitely determinism. No way around it, really.
Oops, I violated the ping rule in my last post:
I think you just agreed with Kosta.
And how do you know what he commanded them? The Bible says not everything is in the Bible. So who is teaching the unwritten stuff when the apostles are not here any more, and how do we know what it is?
And how do you know we have everything that was written, when in fact we know that some writings of the apostles are lost? Don't flatter yourself too much, genius.
Jesus was no teacher of Gnosticism nor was Paul no matter
The way John and Paul and others write has Gnostic overtones.
People can respond according to their own free will but God still accomplishes what He wishes
Sorry, all the events described in the Bible were predestined, or else they would have happened by chance, and God on the sidelines.
Pharaoh was an outstanding example of a person who had several opportunities to choose but God still accomplished exactly what He wanted to do
God made sure the Pharaoh made no choice other than to refuse to accept. Just as Judas had no chlice but to betray Jesus. Just as Paul had no choice but to be "hijacked." Juts as you had no choice but to be born. Just as you have no choice but to die because it's appointed (by God) for all men to die (once). That's what the Bible teaches.
More predestination?
Yes, lots of places in the OT where Israel's enemies' hearts are hardened so they would engage Israel and lose, as per God's wish (and plan).
it is Pharaoh's attitude and continued stubbornness toward God's command that constitutes God “hardening” his heart
Straw men. It says clearly God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he would refuse to accept. If what you say were true, then it would not be God hardening the Pharaoh's heart but the Pharaoh hardening the Pharaoh's heart. That's not what the Bible says.
“definitely determinism”
Now if I could only get the lottery numbers or I would even settle for not doing anything stupid tonight to upset K.
But even the main actors can ad lib (and get in trouble for it.)
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand [of him whom] thou wilt send.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, [Is] not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. - Exodus 4:10-17
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
I thought that what AG was saying was that since we all observe and experience creation we all can know THAT God is
Not necessarily. What she wrote is a leap of faith, an a priori, axiomatic, convenient, starting point, and not something we can know for sure.
So, some are able to hear the whistle and some are not, but all can see the whistle
Again, this is a conjecture. I don't see it that way at all because it doesn't have to be.
Tell me one thing in life, dear kosta, that we can know for sure — other than the fact that will die some day.
I'll tell you something that I'm fairly sure of, and that is: This little hobby of yours — to raise every possible doubt about the existence of God — also delegitimates the Declaration of Independence, and thus the Constitution of the United States — indeed the entire idea of human liberty and the system of American justice under equal laws designed to protect it from infringement by overweening, power-hungry government. "Kill" God and you get Leviathan....
Tut..tut...not this Protestant. Our good works are only the accomplishments of Christ working through us. He is the vine. We are the branches. We can do nothing without Him.
I will not stand before God and say, "Look at all the things I have done for you." All I can do is stand before God and say how much more I could have done had I been more submissive to His will. I thank Him that He is merciful and understanding of my limitations.
Yes you did, and frankly I never heard of such a group, but I take your word for it. Your point is well taken.
Thwarting the will of God is neither possible nor the objective of free
What's the objective of the free will in your discernment, Alamo-Gril?
He didn't mean to. :)
It's okay. :)
We were all born. :)
I didn't say the axiomatic assumption that God exists was wrong, but saying that God IS (statement of fact).
This little hobby of yours — to raise every possible doubt about the existence of God — also delegitimates the Declaration of Independence, and thus the Constitution of the United States — indeed the entire idea of human liberty and the system of American justice under equal laws designed to protect it from infringement by overweening, power-hungry government
With all due respect, that is a pathetic straw man, betty boop. Perhaps you need to get out of the kitchen.
I made that comment about ‘teaching ALL the things he had commanded’ in response to your statement;
“Matthew's so-called Great Commission calls on the disciples to teach (the good news, i.e. that he will be back) and baptize”
All the things he commanded was more than that. How I know? We have the Gospels to read for ourselves and it is they that heard the “ALL”.
Are there things Jesus said that are not written down? Of course as the Bible even says and it obvious from the fact that in even in a very short time a person can say far more than what is recorded. So what?
“So who is teaching the unwritten stuff when the apostles are not here any more, and how do we know what it is?”
The unwritten is going to teach something different than what the written teaches? If yes, what? and in all the rest of the N.T. is there any hint that this is so?
If no, then what is unwritten is not necessary to our understanding of Jesus message. Neither do we need a record of every word of Paul (or anyone for that matter) but that doesn't prevent us from knowing what he taught.
And that is one of the reasons I read the Bible...to understand what the writer/speaker was teaching.
“And how do you know we have everything that was written, when in fact we know that some writings of the apostles are lost? Don't flatter yourself too much, genius”
If something has been lost that should be included as part of “All Scripture” what might it be? Who has suggested either at the time of writing or now what has been lost? or what it might contain that is any different than what we have?
Maybe the Gospel Of Thomas? The Infancy Gospel of James or some like drek? Or, OR, The Book of Abraham? There ya go!
“The way John and Paul and others write has Gnostic overtones.”
The way Jesus had pacifist, hippy, socialist, Buddhist, whatever overtones according to whoever wants to reshape him.
“Yes, lots of places in the OT where Israel's enemies’ hearts are hardened so they would engage Israel and lose, as per God's wish (and plan).”
And some day you'll tell me what and where these ‘places’ are? I'll wait.
“Straw men. It says clearly God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he would refuse to accept. If what you say were true, then it would not be God hardening the Pharaoh's heart but the Pharaoh hardening the Pharaoh's heart. That's not what the Bible says.
“And he(Pharaoh) hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.” (Ex. 7:13)
“And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.” (Ex. 8:32)
“That's not what the Bible says.” It does but it just doesn't support your conclusions about what it says.
“Don't flatter yourself too much, genius”
Oh, I've never thought of myself as a genius, besides there isn't room enough for TWO people who think they're a genius on this thread.
I don't really see that anywhere in Scripture. I do see the Judgement of the individual. What is that Judgement? On what the individuals have done. What are they to do? The Two Commandments of Jesus; the Sermon on the Mount; the parables of Matthew 25. The belief, acceptance and great awe in the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascendence into Heaven of Our Lord. I think that your attitude is laudable, please don't misunderstand me, but it is not Scriptural.
Phillippians 3: 11 Join with others in being imitators of me, 12 brothers, and observe those who thus conduct themselves according to the model you have in us. 18 For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their "shame." Their minds are occupied with earthly things. 20 But our citizenship 13 is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.
Jesus Judges all by their conduct and all things will be subject to Him.
In rereading this, I don’t think that I made it clear enough of necessity of the Worship of God Almighty. Hopefully the Two Commandments of Christ covered it sufficiently. If not, please consider this an addendum.
I don't know. I find that strange coming from a believer. Why was he teaching them? And why are they not written? The unwritten seem to outweigh the written by a lot, so, was he needlessly repeating himself, or just marking time with redundancy? Hmmmm.
Who has suggested either at the time of writing or now what has been lost?
From references.
Maybe the Gospel Of Thomas? The Infancy Gospel of James or some like drek?
Never even considered those.
PS I thought German spelling is Dreck.
And some day you'll tell me what and where these ‘places’ are? I'll wait
Good luck. I won't do your homework. Just look up "God hardened heart" and see home many hits you get.
Oh, I've never thought of myself as a genius, besides there isn't room enough for TWO people who think they're a genius on this thread.
You have a twin? So, who's leaving? :)
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.