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.
Since getting into all this Calvinist stuff, I've realized if I'm supposed to win it's only necessary to buy one lottery ticket.
It hasn't helped.
God must not want me in Paris, but I'm pretty sure He's wrong.
They did exactly what they wanted to do. Judas was unredeemed and therefore he loved money and not God.
Paul was redeemed and he loved God alone.
They both did exactly what they wanted to do, according to the spirit within them.
But at some point, even if you really want to stay up, you will fall asleep.
And that sleep will be against your will because something is acting upon you that is stronger than your will, namely exhaustion.
LOL. Me, too.
My math teacher wife says something about approaching zero equaling zero, and wasting money therefore, and I point out that no one without a ticket has yet won.
At this rate, she'll be proven right. :>)
There really is no good argument against the idea that the only sufficient cause of moral self-awareness is an eternal prior moral self-awareness.
And that logic is why you get the big bucks. 8~)
It would be fun to have the last laugh, wouldn't it? Somebody has to win.
Agreed. They do pull the name out of the hat, and someone does win.
Now, “fairness” and lack of manipulation are entirely different subjects. I’ve seen nothing yet to make me worry about those areas, but it does cross my mind. It would be impossible to prove, of course.
What do these verses teach that the Catohlic Church does not teach?
That is why Protestantism is not merely scripturally wrong, but socially harmful.
For God, there is no time. He sees your past, present and future all at once. Hence, predestination coexists with free will.
For about a tenth time on this thread someone quotes to me Eph 2 trying to stop at verse 9. But verse 10 is what I was alluding to in my post: "we are [God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them".
Ephesians 2:8-10 teaches salvation by grace alone; grace is not by our works; faith and works both are product of grace and both are necessary for salvation, and God alone gets the glory.
... and it will cause a man to walk in the good works prepared for him. We are saved by grace alone through faith and works and not by faith alone, Eph. 2:8-10, glory be to God.
My current take on how both determinism and free will can co-exist has to do with the timing the fall and a decree from God to fix it. What if God permitted an exercise in self-determination for a purpose, and then stepped in with a pre-plan He had to repair it when the damage was evident?
This is simply a rehash no doubt of other arguments about the timing of the decree, but it's where I'm looking at the present time.
Beyond that, I see no way to avoid admitting to determinism. Dr E and B-D have done a decent job of getting me in touch with the argument on their side.
I remain, though, a firm advocate of Christian Unity for I do not believe the church will fail. That ties me very closely with historic Christian orthodoxy, and I consider orthodox independents, orthodox orthodox, and orthodox catholics to be my brothers and sisters. (With some doctrinal reservations about certain doctrines that are not part and parcel of historic orthodoxy.)
"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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
AHA! Dear Sister: you just "tickled my 'universal now' antennae..." '-)
Rest assured, I am "still working on it" -- and am trending toward volumetric time. But trying to illustrate multidimensional concepts on a two-dimensional computer screen is, to say the least, proving to be "challenging". ;-}
Hint: Despite the vanities of all our "centrisms", it is most unlikely that we are precisely "on" -- or, even, anywhere near -- the "most direct arrow of time" between creation and the present state of the Universe!
Suffice it to say that I may have to take us all the way back to the "ultra-centrism" of an infant in the womb to finally extend our vision out to how our all-dimensional Creator might perceive -- or be able to describe to us -- an event like this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2552720/posts via His 'universal now'!
Did you read the scriptures I listed for you? Because if you did, and you read the above scripture, you will see that we aren't going through the tribulation. We will be raptured before the tribulation begins. God has not appointed us to wrath.
Does the Catholic Church believe and teach this?
Okay. I'll go with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles.
It appears you may be interested in my exploration of the concept of "His 'universal time''". (See my #854...)
But there is no "free" will (a free-standing, sui-generis desire), because desire, by definition, arises by the perceived lack of something (hence, why would God have a will?) , and our chocies are not without influence because choices, by definition, cannot be equal. How does that translate into "life matters" and 'life, therefore, has meaning?"
I suppose by "matters" you are saying it is consequential and by "meaning" that it has purpose; but "consequential" is to say importance, and "purpose" is to say a goal. So, then, it seems like you are saying the purpose of life is to make decisions that are of consequence to us. That's like saying the purpose of life is to live. Pretty circular.
And then we have a problem with those individuals whose life was decided by someone else, such as Judas and Paul. :)
WRONG TO THE MAX
AGAIN.
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.