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 think spiritual maturity comes by way of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
“Responsibility comes with a real choice. No choice, no responsibility. Did Judas have a choice? Did Paul?
You will share with us your definition of “real choice”, won’t you?
“...Just as Judas had no chlice but to betray Jesus. Just as Paul had no choice but to be “hijacked.”
8~)
So does India, and India doesn't prohibit religion. All the items I see not made in China seem to be made in India...so what's the difference?
Question as in inquiry.
China is communist. India is a democracy.
LOLOL!
One can postulate anything. Remember your pink unicorns?
For His own reasons, God has chosen a remnant for Himself. Those men He has mercifully, freely and graciously covered in the atoning blood of His Son. God, for His own good pleasure, redeems those men and enables them to choose righteousness.
Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, all men will choose poorly.
Responsibility comes with a real choice. No choice, no responsibility. Did Judas have a choice? Did Paul?
I think you've just proven my point. No, neither Judas nor Paul had a real choice. If Judas had not betrayed Christ, neither you nor I would have been saved by Christ on the cross. Judas was ordained by God to be one of the instruments of death for Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Likewise, Paul is pretty clear that he could do nothing but preach the Gospel once God had smacked him over the head and given sight to his blinded eyes.
Can the leopard change his spots? Is anything God-pleasing that is not of faith?
Read Van Til. I bet you'd like him.
I think that is a generally agreed-upon Christian belief, but I don't understand how this shows the purpose of free will being spiritual maturity.
Amen.
Don’t ask me. I don’t believe in that stuff. It’s a hoax perpetrated by a moldy magisterium that wants us to think we control our own lives so we can hand over control to them, when in fact, God controls everything. 8~)
Pink unicorns are not a hypothesis. They live. All you have to do is really, relaly, really believe it.
But all I did was ask a simple question, that is "if we can postulate na eternal God why not an eternal universe?"
Good night, y'all.
I understand that, but it was A-G's idea.
Sure, go to sleep or stay up and answer silly questions.
That is not a straw man, kosta. (A sidebar maybe.) That is the logical consequence of your position. It looks to me like you are working for a re-do of the French Revolution.... If the majority of Americans thought the way you do, we'd be France already.
Yes I know, but where the reposnibility for their deeds? You wrote ealrier that all men are responsible for their sins. All they did was what God willed. Judas was used for a purpose and so was Paul. It was not their choice; why should it be their repsonsiblity?
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.