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.
Like I said, this is a pathetic straw man. I don't know what God is, so I ask those who claim they do. That's working for a re-do of the French Revolution?
But I will tell you what is: doing your darnest to muzzle free thought and speech. One of the first victims of the French Revolution was the freedom of speech.
If the majority of Americans thought the way you do, we'd be France already
Is that a fact, betty boop? Can you prove that? Or is this just another one of your not very subtle personal attacks, and making these threads about me?
Like I said, maybe it wouldn't hurt if you got out of the kitchen for a while if you can't stand the heat.
You can't have it both ways, Dr. E. If they wanted to do what God willed then it was God's will, and not theirs, even if they believed it was.
Exactly, it's like holding your breath.
xzins: 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
Who said anything about moral self-awareness?
The doctrine of Rapture is a false one, thoroughly unScriptural and never a belief of the Church. Therefore the Church does not teach it.
Free will is the ability to make choices. A perceived dissatisfaction with an existing condition produces the desire to exercise that ability. The only lack necessary is lack of satisfaction with the present situation. Hence God could say that it is not good for the man to continue alone.
He was not satisfied with leaving Adam without a mate.
No choice can be without influence or the choosing would not take place at all but choice with no influence at all is not what free will is.
Since you bring Paul and Judas into the discussion again....They both made decisions freely, they each had an opportunity to exercise a choice of one path or another at various times and their choices had consequences.
Were they influenced by anything? Of course they were!
Simply having choices available may be an influence.
Are all choices equal? Of course not! But often until they are made and pursued for a time their inequality may not be known. Does a person marry or not? Do they marry “A” or “B” if both are available?
“And then we have a problem with those individuals whose life was decided by someone else, such as Judas and Paul. :)”
It was the consequences of their free will decisions that was decided by someone else. I buy a stock and it goes down in value, If I could decide that it should go up I certainly would but I cannot. But that is a “problem” inherent in most decisions we make, we cannot choose or decide the consequences.
I did.
In discussion and apologetics, this is rarely done. However.. For the purpose of a real, formal debate, it is necessary to define terms. And this is also necessary, obviously, for a logical proposition, for an axiom. This is the direction you're taking.
I've suggested before that a definition that can be used for these purposes is "the creative principle of the universe."
St John Damascene and other theologians would say that we cannot know all about God, but that we can know some. I think the suggested definition is not complete, but could be considered accurate and useful for a purpose. It's a partial definition but one I *think* most Christians, and most other religion's theologians would accept.
But, I wonder if the agnostic or atheist would accept it, or maybe they would grant that it exists thus negating the disagreement under debate.
Either I don't understand that definition and/or I don't accept it. Free will isn't a desire, it's a faculty of consciousness allowing decision and choice.
our chocies are not without influence because choices, by definition, cannot be equal.
I don't see how influences negate choice. And choices can be equal in some ways and not in others. Obviously something must be different or else there is nothing to choose between.
How does that translate into "life matters" and 'life, therefore, has meaning?"
It is our ability to affect ourselves, our surroundings and others that gives human life meaning. What we choose and do matters.
This was proposed as opposed to strict predestination where our choices are an illusion, and only seem to matter to us.
You can postulate anything of course, even Positivism. :) . The next step is the killer where you look for logical consistency, etc. I.e. either show problems in or build the case for your postulate.
In your question, the best logical job for the difference (created, causal vs. uncreated, non-causal) was done by Aquinas. In short, his proof was that there must be something uncausal (theological called "God") behind the string of the causal (the physical universe in your question.)
His proof is neither debunked nor proven to everyone's obvious satisfaction, but is still the meat of very active debate in philosophy. I recommend working through it to those interested in the question.
Of course we can choose to hold our breath for a limited period of time. Just as we can decide to jump up, but not to stay up.
Limitations on choices doesn't mean we can't choose at all. I can't agree with the absurdity of saying we don't have choices at the same time as we choose what to type and whether to click "Post."
It would be. No, I'm saying consciousness, choices, the ability to determine and effectuate purpose gives meaning. The choice aspect is a faculty that provides a means, not an end.
To clarify in regards to determinism: without the means of free will, choosing, being real, then we are only living an illusion that our learning, considering, deciding have meaning. We are only actors who do not know they are in a play.
Amen.
As the WCF reminds us, "there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will."
But at the same time, there are pretenders and false Christs and false prophets who seek, if it were possible, to deceive even the elect.
We know them by their evil fruit and by their lack of adherence to the Bible as their rule of faith and practice.
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?
But that implies God permitted this exercise to see what happens. And we are agreed God knows everything long before it happens. There's never a point in time when God waits for an outcome He has not set in motion to accomplish His ultimate goal.
I think it's more consistent Biblically to say whatever "is" at this moment in time is exactly how God has determined this moment to be, for His own perfect reasons. One day we'll know why. It's just as Paul says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
It has been said that Lotto is for people who are not good at math.
And yet if one does not buy a ticket, he cannot win. But it is silly to buy a bunch of tickets.
lol. The verses you reference say very clearly that works do not save. It's pretty amazing you miss that and instead say those verses mean the exact opposite of what the words tell us.
But that kind of backward exegesis explains a lot.
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. " -- Eph. 2:8-10"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
So boast all you want that your works have saved you. Scripture tells us we are saved by grace alone, and that grace will produce good works which are the evidence of our salvation, not the reason for it.
God's mercy is the only reason we are saved.
Now that's a strawman! I am not trying to muzzle free thought and speech. But I do notice the futility of a "debate" between Christians, who believe the Holy Bible is the Word of God, and a Derrida-style literary deconstructionist who evidently feels the Author of the piece is irrelevant to understanding what the text means. You say yourself you "don't know what God is." Your deconstructionist approach to textual criticism ensures you will never find out.
Perhaps your correspondents do not realize that you and they aren't even on the same page when it comes to approaching Holy Scripture.
A few years back, I wrote this [Don't Let Science Get You Down Timothy, in collaboration with S. Venable, p. 17]— which seems applicable to our present "debate":
Is it possible to reason about the nature of true existents of reality — which might include such noncorporeal things as, say, individual human rights — with an opponent of different religious persuasion, or of differing scientific or social philosophy, and make a persuasive case that objectively establishes their reality to that person’s satisfaction? To that question, I think the answer is: Yes, that is possible.An observation of Eric Voegelin's may clarify this point:But what of the case where you want to persuade an opponent who is in deliberate revolt against First Reality — against the very idea of reality as a given constituted order of being? That, I think, is simply not possible: You cannot make any objective case to such a person. His revolt against the natural order constitutes a flight from reality and reason itself, for the operations of reason are ultimately premised on that order. Such a person has deliberately chosen to inhabit a “dream world” designed to be hermetically sealed against any impressions or experiences that come from “outside.”
His system is relentlessly self-referring and self-contained. Nonconforming data are simply screened out as illusory or nonexistent. The self-selected dream world that enfolds him is, of course, a “second reality.” It was adopted precisely because his existence in “first reality” has somehow become unbearable for him.
[W]e all have had occasion at one time or another to engage in debate with ideologists — whether communists or intellectuals of a persuasion closer to home. And we all have discovered on such occasions that no agreement, or even an honest disagreement, could be reached, because the exchange of argument was disturbed by a profound difference of attitude with regard to all fundamental questions of human existence — with regard to the nature of man, to his place in the world, to his place in society and history, to his relation to God. Rational arguments could not prevail because the partner to the discussion did not accept as binding for himself the matrix of reality in which all specific questions concerning our existence as human beings are ultimately rooted; he has overlaid the reality of existence with another mode of existence that Robert Musil has called the Second Reality. The argument could not achieve results, it had to falter and peter out, as it became increasingly clear that not argument was pitched against argument, but that behind the appearance of a rational debate there lurked the difference of two modes of existence, of existence in truth and existence in untruth. The universe of rational discourse collapses ... when the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared.In any case, you seem to fail to realize that the central idea of the American system is that human rights inalienably exist in persons because they are direct gifts of God; therefore, the equal rights of life, liberty, and property inhere in individual human nature itself. In short, they are grants of God, not of the state. Because God granted them, they cannot be taken away.Corollary: The difficulties of debate concern the fundamentals of existence. Debate with ideologists is quite possible in the areas of the natural sciences and of logic. The possibility of debate in these areas, which are peripheral to the sphere of the person, however, must not be taken as presaging the possibility in the future that areas central to the person will also move into the zone of debate. Among students of the Soviet Union there is a tendency to assume that the universe of discourse, at present restricted to peripheral subject matters, will, by the irresistible power of reason, expand so as to include the fundamentals of existence. While such a possibility should not be flatly denied, it also should be realized that there is no empirical evidence on which such an expectation could be based....
The Second Realities [that]… cause the breakdown of rational discourse are a comparatively recent phenomenon. They have grown during the modern centuries...until they have reached, in our own time, the proportions of a social and political force which in more gloomy moments may look strong enough to extinguish our civilization — unless, of course, you are an ideologist yourself and identify civilization with the victory of Second Reality. ["On Debate and Existence," The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12: Published Essays, 1966–1985, p. 36f
The [grotesqueness of Second Realities]… must not be confused with the comic or humorous. The seriousness of the matter will be best understood, if one visions the concentration camps of totalitarian regimes and the gas chambers of Auschwitz in which the grotesqueness of opinion becomes the murderous reality of action. [Op. cit., “On Classical Studies,” p. 260.]
Whatever your view of God is, understand that our entire American constitutional system utterly depends on Him for its rational integrity.
The French Revolution was the single most radical separation of church and state in the history of mankind. The result was profound social disorder, even chaos, which finally became so intolerable that people were glad for a "strong man" to come in and clean up the mess. That would be Napoleon, who plunged Europe into a war fought literally worldwide, which lasted for decades.
Our own dear Captain Zero (the so-called sitting president) is OUR present-day would-be "strong man," who not only "never lets a good crisis go to waste," but supplies an outrageous example of lawlessness seemingly every day of the week. He is no fan of Christianity either.
Try to see the big picture here, dear kosta.... Whose side are you on?
ROTFLOL. Certainly for people who've never taken a statistics course.
I wasn’t implying that God doesn’t know what will happen. A pre-plan and plan by God for a purpose doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know. (or you can think of it as plan with parts A & B) It just mean the plan must run its course, if He so desires it, for His purposes.
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.