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.
Alex, don't you understand anything? :) This is how it works: you are born again and you accept Christ. Christ pays for your "bills" you owe God, and you get a VIP limmo ride to heaven—guaranteed. You are done. You don't have to do anythging. And guess who gets to carry your luggage? :)
Oh, please don’t ever be disheartened over me. I’m quite assured!
In your reply at 709 you did not refute xzins' premise for his question but instead you simply said that you are interested in "Church and Bible history."
You could have corrected the premise.
My objection and first observation was that your reply was not responsive to xzins' question and so I rephrased it as follows: "Or to put it another way, why would an atheist be interested in someone he denies exists?"
Neither xzins nor I directly accused you of being an atheist. But we are both interested why you would be drawn to these debates when you so frequently equate belief in God to belief in pink unicorns.
Thank you for asking, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your prayers!
God ordained everything (including the sin I suppose), yet he is not the author of sin? This is one of those "curious" things about Calvinism. :)
He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down
Now that's what I call real science! :)
I have more to say on your point but will consolidate my reply with one to Dr. Eckleburg's post later on this thread.
Or to put it another way, if Cyrus had free will to say "no thanks" then God would have seen His will done nonetheless. I could envision Him disappearing the naysaying Cyrus and replacing him with an obedient Cyrus made of a stone.
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
LOLOL!
Because there is nothing to refute; I don't know what God is. This is not an active denial of God.
My belief or disbelief is neither a confirmation nor refutation of God's existence, and neither is yours, nor anyone else's for that matter.
My objection and first observation was that your reply was not responsive to xzins' question and so I rephrased it as follows: "Or to put it another way, why would an atheist be interested in someone he denies exists?"
Why don't you ask a declared atheist?
Neither xzins nor I directly accused you of being an atheist
Certainly, xzins did not—he only stated that it seems that I don't believe either in God or pink unicorns on Jupiter, but you jumped to the conclusion that I deny that God exists by asking me "why would an atheist be interested in someone he denies exists." I never said I am an atheist and I never said that God doesn't exist, so why would you ask me unless you presumed otherwise?
Great.
Thanks. I’ll wait for the ping.
But those rules of engagement are absurd on the face.
The theory of relativity is not invalidated by a gnat's inability to comprehend it. Massless particles cannot be said not to exist because they cannot be directly observed.
Indeed, the methods whereby the physical creation is studied involves many things which are themselves not physical: logic, math, physical laws, etc.
According to Einstein, the one who cannot sense the mysterious is dead or blind.
The following passage points to the obvious fact that there was a beginning, a first cause:
Communist countries are good evidence of what happens when God is officially outlawed by the state.
"What's the objective of the free will in your discernment, Alamo-Gril?"I've been thinking about that question and like your answer. It's a good question too.Spiritual maturity.
My answer was going along the lines of "Learning." Or "learning to..."
You're making me think that the question is similar to "what is the objective of this life?"
Catechisms have the answer to this of course, and maybe the "free will" aspect adds "learning to..." to their answer.
Free will - making choices that have consequences means that life matters, our choices matter. This life, therefore, has meaning. Choices and consequences develop us, teach us something - hopefully.
Then I remember the aphorism: "Experience is the thing you get right after you really needed it."
That is probably because as mortals we are merely observers "in" space/time, traveling along a short worldline from our physical birth to our physical death.
That is our observer problem as mortals.
But of a truth, God has no such limitation.
And there may be more than one dimension of time. What we consider as a line could be a plane or volume.
The moment may be far more than we could guess.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
Thank you for your reply, dear brother in Christ!
In my view, the difference between our spiritual discernment on the matter of predestination v. free will reduces to whether the mind, soul or spirit can cause anything to happen.
I say yes and you say no.
In the following passage, Jesus exhorts us to use our minds, souls or spirits to cause things to happen: pray, believe that ye receive, forgive.
But I do perceive in the words of God both predestination in prophecy - and free will in commandments. So to me, it is a balance between the two - we have some freedom of movement but we can in no way thwart the will of God.
To God be the glory, not man, never man.
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.