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 have a postscript to my last, as follows:
(1) "Reality is no finished systems but a structure in process of transformation." That observation is from Voegelin's editor and friend, Ellis Sandoz, in the introduction to the work I cited in my last. That transformation, to my mind, is the movement from the Alpha to the Omega.... It proceeds according to the Logos of God, His spoken Word in the Beginning.... Thus, "there is no such thing as merely "natural" reason; rather there is always the divine–human encounter productive of illuminating truth or of deforming untruth, as a man's readiness and response may determine. Why truth does not always prevail remains a mystery." I gather the readiness and response business has something to do with "eyes and ears".... A man who deliberately chooses to shut his eyes, and deliberately stuffs up his ears so that he cannot hear, probably has something to do with that "mystery." Or so it seems to me....
(2) "....Chistianity is not concerned with belief in a literary text, but with man's confrontation with God through faith." [Voegelin, "The German University and German Society," op. cit., p. 11.]
Evidently our brother kosta rejects such understandings. If I'm wrong about this, he can correct me.
Thank you so much for writing!
Depend upon it. The article will be posted sometime next week, and I'll be sure to ping our brother kosta50.
Thanks for your kind words about the article, "Two Revolutions, Two Views of Man," and for your kindness in reviewing it for me, pre-publication. [Part 1 is already up at Conservative Underground.]
And thank you, Sister BB.
I trust you’ll be sharing professor duties with Alamo’s FRysics 101 class. :>)
“But it is silly to buy a bunch of tickets”
Ever try to throw away a lottery ticket just before the drawing? If you think eating only one potato(e) chip is bad....
LOL!
Just why exactly does K put up with you?
Thank you so much for your exposition in Post #882.
I’ve been trying for a while to express that very thought, with varying degrees of success. You have stated it well and plainly enough for those not as well read in the sciences to understand.
In your last line you depart from your usual ending in a most significant way that provides a perfect segue to my own exposition of metaphysics as an extension of language.
You have included the Greek Alpha and Omega, titled to Christ in Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
As we have discussed in the past, the reference to “Alpha and Omega” would be of particular significance to those versed in the traditions of Old Testament, and Torah in particular.
Alpha and Omega = Aleph and Tav. the Aleph and Tav taken together form the word we would write in English transliteration “ET” and is an acronym for the whole Aleph-Bet. The Rabbis of the Torah regarded these letters of the Aleph -Bet as *the stuff of creation itself*. They thought of them in much the same way as we think of the periodic table of elements.
“Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve’et ha’arets.” “In a beginning, God created (the Aleph-Bet)...” It should be noted that the little word “ET” not only signifies the Aleph-Bet, but acts as a marker denoting *specificity.* Without it, the statement would be that God had created “stuff” without any definition. “Formless and void” would be one way to put it.
It is the addition of the “ET”, the language, that enables creation to have specificity. When we name things we not only identufy them, we empower (bless) them.
From the means to express the reality of creation, and the Creator comes the limitless possibilities of the universe we see, including the reality of a merciful Creator God, who gives Himself for the sake of His creation.
This whole concept puts the lie to the statement of Duckett, quoted by our dear brother kosta50, earlier in this thread:
“reality is voiceless and wordless, and the meaning of life isn’t located in language.”
As I responded at that time, “The reality you are looking for is that Spirit behind the word and the thing the word names. We Christians call it “Logos” and it is The Christ.
In The Logos, we have the name, the thing itself and that which causes the thing to be what it is.”
The Logos is manifest precisely at that point where, as you put it so well: “Both space and time are required for physical causation.”
Everything that is, requires the Logos to exist. Nothing that is can be without Him. And He has chosen to make Himself manifest first in the medium of ~language~.
Duckett and kosta may choose to live in a universe that is mute. The one I (we) live in is full of sound. that sound can be the cacophony of hell (left to our own limited intellect and devices) or it can be the true “Music of the Spheres”, a cosmic hymn to the Creator God and His Son, the Logos, through whom it all came into being and with whom it all makes sense.
In an instant.....
Well, I'll be there if she needs any "help" from me....
She, my dearest sister in Christ, has already been of tremendous help to me.
And so have you, dear brother in Christ!
Thank you so very much for what you do in the Spirit of Christ, my dear brother in Him!
I agree that this is consistent with how the Christians see God, and there is biblical suport for that, but there are instances in the Old Testament where God has to "come down and see..." so he "will know" (LOL) [Gen 18:21] and numeorus other examples.
Well...I haven’t “exactly” talked her into it yet. :>)
She’s just on notice! LOL.
And thank you for all your insight, kindness, and unifying representation of another branch of Christianity.
Some would say that it is an anthropomorphism. Some would say it is more akin with the rationale for Christ’s incarnation in Hebrews....in short, can’t be any complaints that He was out-of-touch for never having personally checked on it.
Probably a combination more than one over the other. And no doubt others that I’m forgetting at the moment — or simply too simple to yet know.
“Just why exactly does K put up with you?”
Her depth perception is very bad; causing her to misjudge both distance and sincerity. I suspect that after 50 years, including the first three years of my pleading and begging before we were married, she figures it’s just too much to admit she messed up so she is making the best of it and become a fanatical rapturist, hoping with every thunder and lightning that it is the Lord’s return and her release.
The good news is she stepped on the ducks here so it is only temporary!
depth...sincerity Rotflol!
I’ll be sending her new glasses. Can you provide pick-up location?
Then feel free to stay out of it.
Why is it that I can? :>)
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
I didn't make the definitions, I simply used the agreed-upon meaning of the words (as per official lexicons).
Free will is the ability to make choices
You forgot to add—freely. Free, as in without restriction, influence, interference, retstaints, or burdens, etc. Name one situation in real life that meets this definition. It doesn't exist. Our choices are always forced by something and therefore never truly free.
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
Okay.
Hence God could say that it is not good for the man to continue alone.
What motivated God to create the world? Lack of satisfaction? God lacking anything is a contradiction in terms or just plain anthropomorphism. That which is perfect lacks nothing.
He was not satisfied with leaving Adam without a mate.
He should have thought of that before he made Adam. That shows lack of omniscience.
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.
Free will is the ability to make choices—freely, as per your own definition (above) and the logical extension of what free is. In every day language, that means not forced or influenced. But since everything ends us being according to God's will, his will determines our decisions or else he would be playing dice.
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.
In that case there is no God's plan, and God is forced to second-guess man. Christians believe there was exactly 0% chance that Judas would exercise his free will and decide not to betray Jesus. last time I checked, Paul doesn't think he had much of a choice either, having been set aside in his mother's womb and struck form his horse on the way to Damascus. God didn't ask him to choose even if the last thing Paul wanted to do was join the people he persecuted.
Were they influenced by anything? Of course they were!
Hence they were not free. Their decision was guaranteed by someone else's will.
Are all choices equal? Of course not!
I am glad we agree. :)
It was the consequences of their free will decisions that was decided by someone else.
What was decided? Their choice or the consequence of their choice? Either way our will is not free because it has to conform to God's will.
But that is a “problem” inherent in most decisions we make, we cannot choose or decide the consequences.
If God decides the consequences of our choices, then the consequences God preordained by necessity force our choices, even if we are not aware of it, hence the "free will" is only something humans experience on their level as an illusion.
Paul was not dissatisfied. He was forced to change his mind. Judas was not dissatisfied either. He did what God made sure he would do.
And God Himself called you to that and gifted to you to do it.
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.