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.
The theory of relativity would not be called a theory if it were a fact. It is a working model that will be replaced by another one like all others have been.
Indeed, the methods whereby the physical creation is studied involves many things which are themselves not physical: logic, math, physical laws, etc.
They are methods and tools for connecting the dots.
According to Einstein, the one who cannot sense the mysterious is dead or blind.
That is his religious opinion (by his own admission).
The following passage points to the obvious [sic] fact [sic] that there was a beginning, a first cause
If you can postulate an eternal God, why not an eternal universe? If God doesn't have a beginning why not the universe? Why is it an "obvious fact" with the universe but not with God? Just because?
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20
Oh, please...If they are invisible then they cannot be seen. And the things that are made don't understand jack about them, but are grasping at straws to justify sticking to their theories.
Like I said, axiomatically assuming God's existence is valid, but it is not a proof without excuse. Besides, God is such a nebulous concept that to even speak of God as an agreed-upon definition is an exercise in futility.
Why spiritual maturity and how do you know that?
Good thread to follow Alamo-Girl. Informative posts no doubt. Thank you....CW
Works for me. God is the ultimate poet. 8~)
There's a difference between apparent contradiction and actual contradiction. God is sovereign and is in control of His universe, having ordained all that comes to pass. All men are responsible for their own sins.
Those two statements are not contradictory. They co-exist rationally, though apparently paradoxically.
"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." -- Deuteronomy 29:29
Here's an interesting site I just found with lots of thoughts to ponder...
Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham – but only Isaac was heir to the promises. Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac – but only Jacob was chosen to carry on the Jewish line. Significantly, in both examples the younger son was chosen, not the older. This reversal of tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty, since no one can say it was the “natural” choice that was made. It was SUPERnatural choice... Mercy is not a matter of fairness, or justice, or deserving. If deserved, it would not be mercy. If merely just, it would not be amazing. If fair, no one could ever be saved. Mercy is undeserved kindness shown to depraved wretches who are headed headlong for hell. What better way to say UNDESERVED than to call it a gift? In His mercy, God does not allow all of fallen humanity to perish.He sovereignly selects those who will be saved, and this is His absolute right as Creator. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In doing this, He leaves the lost to their choice and the justice they deserve. The saved are brought to a point of choosing Him, and often they do not realize until much later that they were first chosen by Him. This is pure irony: God chooses us, therefore we choose Him, but we cannot know He chooses us until after we have chosen Him.Paul shows that in Israel's history the chosen were divided from the unchosen according to God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:7-13):
They flood our markets wiht their affordable merchandise. I don't know about you, but I notice that most of the things we buy are made in China.
God didn't need this heaven and earth. We did.
He doesn't change. We do.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. - Philippians 2:12
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 1:5-6
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. - I Cor 3:2
But you just got through saying that everything we do is according to God's will. That must include the sin. And if man cannot resist God's will, how is then anything (including sin) his responsibility? Every one is just doing what God irresistibly willed.
Responsibility comes with a real choice. No choice, no responsibility. Did Judas have a choice? Did Paul?
But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42
How could we "need" anything when we didn't even exist? What did you need before you were born?
Endless repetitions of the same axioamtic argumetns don't prove anything.
And they are slave-like because the state is their "god."
But there is good news coming out of China - house churches are springing up, official churches are allowed. Hopefully they will discover their individuality and inalienable God-given rights. If so, look for big changes in China.
you: Endless repetitions of the same axioamtic argumetns don't prove anything.
I do not play by those rules of engagement. I will give you no quarter.
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
I live it. The more I hear the words of God, the more I experience in this mortal life, the more I mature spiritually: the more I love God, believe Him and trust Him.
I don't see how this shows that the purpose of free is spiritual maturity.
Well, now, I would have to qualify that observation. If by "anything" you mean something other than what God has ordained from before the foundation of the world, then I would say that is impossible because God's will is determinant and known to Him inside of time and outside of time. So whatever happens has already been formed in the mind of God and as such, would be written in stone.
As an example, if my child were terribly sick I would pray night and day for God to heal him. Not for a minute would I second-guess my prayers which would probably be the only things sustaining me. But at the very same time I would know that my child was going to live for the exact number of days God had already determined he would be on earth.
Two thoughts. Two impulses. Both true.
But to your question, certainly our minds "cause things to happen." The natural man's unregenerate mind "causes" him to disobey God and feel pleasure in his disobedience and compels him to continue to sin.
A mind that has been renewed by the Holy Spirit, according to the will and purpose of God, will likewise "cause" a man to feel sorrow for his sins against the all-holy Creator and compel him to repent of those sins and desire to sin no more.
Thus, the question becomes "who renews men's minds?" Men or God? Who rebirths the spirit of men? Men or God? Who gives eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart of flesh which will love Christ's appearing?
God. Only God. According to His inclination, and not ours, which will always fall away from God unless He first draws us to Him with an unbreakable tether.
It's all of God, who declared the end from the beginning.
"Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you." -- Augustine.
The second sentence is good advice. The first sentence is true.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
I didn't ask for a quarter; just a simple answer to "If you can postulate an eternal God why not an eternal universe?"
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.