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.
I don't need or want you to do my homework, just to do yours. p.s. dreck is German, drek is Yiddish.
Yet it is not hard to understand WITHOUT the Protestant fake theology messing it up.
Of course not. God's predestination is based on the foreknowledge of our freely willed acts.
It must be your lucky night.
This is not what I asked about. The statement in 643 was “We know we are saved because we can look inward and realize that we believe”. We surely CAN look inward, and we should, for example, in order to prepare for confession. We can also recognize that we believe the message of the Church, including, of course, the Gospel at its center. But where does the scripture recommend that we look inside to gain an assurance of our salvation? I can show many directly relevant passages where we are encouraged to look at our works in order to see our faith, but I was wondering if there was something about proving one’s faith by introspection.
He who persevereth to the end shall be saved. Look it up.
If I am wrong about the scripture, there should be a scripture that proves me wrong.
I agree and I have known a lot of atheists.
Navel-gazing our way to salvation? Wow, you may have come up with yet another hook for a televangelist show. Choices - Oral Roberts climbing a tower that God will kill him in unless you send him 7 million dollars - Jimmy Swaggart crying about how prostitutes tore a hole in his jogging suit - Kenneth Hagin unctuously prattling about saving the Jews - W. Herbert Armstrong beetling on about space aliens invading Earth in Revelation - and Alex making millions off navel-gazing as a path to salvation. I suppose that it beats glass looking or hat gazing. This way, you don't have to buy the hat or glass...
Yes, but that passage describes our abilities purely of ourselves and we certainly are not God. The good works that we choose to do are empowered by the grace of Christ:
[2] Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: [3] In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: [4] But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, [5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)[6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph 2)
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48)
The things that are impossible with men, are possible with God (Lk 18:27)
It doesn’t matter. Anti-Catholics twist everything, anyway. Whatever you say will be purposefully misunderstood by people who want to ignore you.
If you don't choose to do the works God prepared for you to do, Christ will not do them for you. "God hath prepared [the good works] that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10).
Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't do half my posts if not for the comic relief some of the responses provide.
Maybe they are just lazy?
OR you can hang around for the Dispensation of Grace to end with the rapture of the Church the Body of Christ, and go into the Dispensation of the Millenial Kingdom, which begins with the Tribulation. Of course, you will want to "endure until the end". Good luck with that. And you're right your persistence should give you a good start. If you can endure.
Applause. Let us also consider:
Phillipians 2: 12 10 11 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 12 13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. 14 Do everything without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, 13 among whom you shine like lights in the world, 16 as you hold on to the word of life, so that my boast for the day of Christ may be that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
All of our works are to be done in the service of Christ, but make no mistake, they are to be done. And by each individual. Failure is not an option, when facing our Judge.
You guys are so cute in your sincerity. In a way, I am just so entertained by the Reformation and its aftermath. It is only when I think of the effects on men's souls that it rapidly loses the entertainment value.
iknow..and you’re just gonna laugh and laugh and...
If by "ad lib" we mean a person does something that is not ordained by God from before the foundation of the world then that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. At the moment of creation, God ordained His plan for life and time and space and all existence to occur. All of it. And so any "ad libbing" would likewise have been factored into God's prescience since, by definition, He is omniscient.
And if something were to occur that did not comport with God's plan of creation, He would change it (at that same moment of creation) to comply with His determinant will.
And we can't get around this "ad libbing" by saying "at the moment of creation" isn't a real moment because God most certainly did begin creation at some point in time, which he also created. Life is linear. Life moves according to God's decree. It began when God created life and it will end when God wraps up time.
And I don't think we can say both free will and predestination are true because they are polar opposites. Either men act independently of God or men fulfill the lives God has given them. As the WCF says in Chapter 3, "Of God's Eternal Decree" -- "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]
So ultimately, it doesn't seem like there is such a thing as an "ad lib" because that would imply there is something outside the perfect control of the perfect Creator. Something would be autonomous; independent of God's sovereignty. But we know that God animates everything. Without His sustaining hand, the world would not exist.
If you guys have some time, a worthwhile read is the fairly succinct "CALVIN'S TREATISE ON PREDESTINATION"...
"By Providence, we mean, not an unconcerned sitting of God in heaven, from which He merely observes the things that are done in the world; but that all-active and all-concerned seatedness on His throne above, by which He governs the world which He Himself hath made. So that God, as viewed in the glass of His Providence, is not only the Maker of all things in a moment, but the perpetual Ruler of all things which He hath created. That Providence, therefore, which we ascribe to God, pertains as much to His operating hands as to His observing eyes. When, therefore, God is said to rule the world by His Providence, we do not merely mean that He maintains and preserves that order of nature which He had originally purposed in Himself, but that He holds and continues a peculiar care of every single creature that He has created. And true and certain is the fact, that as it was the wonderful wisdom of God that originally made the world, and disposed it in its present beautiful order, so, unless the omnipotent power of God, ever present, sustained it thus created and disposed it, it could not continue in its designed order and form one hour..."
As xzins said, this understanding is simply "trust and rest."
Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth. The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens. Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening. O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." -- Psalm 104:19-33"He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
Not really. At the end, it does get a little disheartening, watching how people handle their own beliefs.
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.