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.
That sentence makes no sense. It's like saying "Trees grow in the mountains, therefore I use a fork to eat peas."
God is indeed inside and outside of time - past, present and future. That does not negate the fact that we are living God's thoughts after Him.
Creation ex nihilo goes to the heart of physical cosmologists. It is seen as a failure to Steinhardt and his cyclic model and to Hawking and his imaginary time model that the physical cosmologist cannot explain the origin of real time.
Infinity past is a necessary "belief" of all atheists but it does not hold up to scrutiny by math or science.
Real time and real space are required for physical causation which is the fundamental necessary element for all physical cosmologies whether multi-verse, ekpyrotic, multi-world or whatever.
Mathematically, the dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates (axes) necessary to identify a point within the space.
A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc.
That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.
It is not nothing. It is a spatial point. A singularity is not nothing.
In ex nihilo Creation, the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.
There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.
In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.
Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.
Wave propagation cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.
Moreover, wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.
For instance “0” at point nt causes “1” at point n+1t+1 which causes "0" at point n+1t+2 etc..
Obviously, physical wave propagation (e.g. big bang/inflationary model) cannot precede space/time and physical causality.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
All physical cosmologies require space and time for physical causality. Period.
There is no ex nihilo explanation for the beginning of real space and real time and therefore physical causality.
And because, since the 1960’s forward, measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation consistently agree that the universe is expanding – that there was a beginning of real space and real time – we know that there was creation ex nihilo. Moving the goalpost back to prior universes does not make that issue go away.
Only God can be the uncaused cause, the first cause, The Creator.
Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.
The point is not that you don't "have" to do anything. The point is that for the first time you will want to do something "God-pleasing" because we are told in the Bible that "anything not of faith is sin."
Further, Scripture tells us over and over that the only work that saves anyone is the work of Christ on the cross, which permits His righteousness to be imputed to the sinner.
Otherwise, you're just boasting, contrary to Paul's instructions in Eph. 2.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:6
Seems pretty clear to me.
You get a hearty AMEN! from me on that one. 8~)
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!
I am thrilled you took notice of this thread and am very much looking forward to your article on the "universal now." Your perspective as both a Christian and a scientist will no doubt be very illuminating.
Like you, I have trended to a volumetric time based on Scripture and geometric physics from Vafa and Wesson v successes and failures at CERN (Higgs field/boson) - and insights from my brothers and sisters in Christ!
MHGinTN has approached volumetric time and Scripture - and has shared some glimpses with us.
And betty boop will probably be touching on it in her manuscript for "God and the observer problem."
Praise God!!!
Well done.
WELL PUT,
imho.
Thx.
Because it was what they ultimately wanted to do.
The unregenerated will WANT to sin and the regenerated will WANT to repent.
And yes, God chooses who to regenerate and who to leave in their sins. God elects; Christ redeems; the Holy Spirit sanctifies.
That's life as we know it, according to the word of God.
That’s a GREAT line. I’ll remember it.
Only God can be the uncaused cause, the first cause, The Creator.
Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.
Beautifully said...
Can you add me to your ping list, Alamo-Girl... Thanks.
I am humbled by your knowledge, Sister. It seems to me that there is no explanation that excludes ex nihilo. That creation and ex nihilo are in large part synonymous. I do like the idea that any change necessitates space, time, mass, etc.
My contention was that moral self-awareness that we see has to have a greater cause which would indicate that that greater cause is at a minimum a greater moral self-awareness. (Spirit)
God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. (Truth would parallel the “moral” dimension and Spirit the “self-awareness” aspect of my construct, feeble as it was.)
Therefore, Spirit (God) and Truth (a (the?) key attribute of God) is eternal. He is eternally “I Am”, Holy, and Glorious.
There is no argument against it, since to argue implies both morality and self-awareness.
Common sense tells us that these things do not randomly assemble themselves.
Perhaps your correspondents do not realize that you and they aren't even on the same page when it comes to approaching Holy Scripture.
May I borrow for a tag :)
This humble preacher will gladly attend when you offer your first Freeper online physics class. FRysics 101, Instructor Prof Alamo. Let me know when you launch.
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.