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.
LOLOL!
You realize, don’t you, that my begging is boundless. I’m also attempting to twist BB’s arm so that we have a pair of Profs, A-G & BB
(a pair of profs...does it beat a full house?)
:>)
And then kosta wrote: "Then feel free to stay out of it." (Seems like a non sequitur to me....)
What? And abandon the field to you??? Are you really that "nutz" that you would expect me do to that???
Granted, my "kitchen" is very hot. But I'm used to it.
How about you?
Well put, INDEED.
QUACK QUACK
1 HEN, 2 DUCKS, 3 SQUACKING GEESE
Though actually, I have no clue what stepped on the duck means in this context.
HARUMPH!
WE CAN!
I cannot pick an excerpt from it to highlight because it should be read altogether. Beautiful!
But I do wish to underscore a point about Logos, the communication of a message and spiritual language.
Physically, that message is our DNA, the information content that uniquely describes who we physically are. We are physically alive because that message, who we are, is being communicated throughout our physical bodies.
Likewise, spiritually, we are spiritually alive because His message of "Who He IS" is being communicated in our spirits. Or to put it another way, I am enlivened by His words. That is the “needful part” Mary found and Jesus promises will never be taken away.
But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-18
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. –I Corinthians 12:3
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4
There is no abandoning of the field, but sometimes I wish we’d switch threads more often. Something new to read before we divert into a sidebar discussion.
:>)
It is the addition of the “ET” [i.e., the Aleph–Tav], in language, that enables creation to have specificity. When we name things we not only identify them, we empower (bless) them.
Thank you most gratefully from my heart for your perspicative illuminations of this point.
WRT the "blessing" aspect, formal science can be of no help whatsoever.
Well, one must catch as one can. We find our opportunities where they lay.... :^) Until we gain further insight.
I keep my mind open. Knowing that, in the final analysis, mind operates under a rule it did not make for itself....
You’re right, of course. I’m just complaining a bit, and I feel much better now that I’ve vented a bit. It’s 11 PM here, and I just (unwisely) drank a cup of coffee.
I totally agree.
"Science" simply has no method to deal with spiritual matters that are so central to ordinary human experience, "the human condition," which seems to be universal as far back as human historical experience goes, cross-culturally.
What post-modernism is trying to do, it seems to me, is to expunge this living history from human memory for all subsequent time....
Man's experience counts for nothing; God counts for nothing..... Thus nothing can mean anything.
And God's free and rational creatures are supposed to live in a situation like this?
Rational creatures, it seems to me, cannot do such a thing.
Thank you so very much, dear shibumi, for your penetrating insights!
" Free, as in without restriction, influence, interference, retstaints, or burdens, etc"
No, you have to define the whole term here - free will. Your combinations of definitions would mean there's no such thing in science as "free electrons," etc. etc.
Free will is a philosophical term of art, so you'd need to go to an encyclopedia, philosophical terms reference or some such to find a better definition.
Not that you wouldn't still have some work to do on getting agreement with your partner, but it would be a leap of the above.
Couldn’t free will be simply described in the case of Adam and Eve? She could be said to have been deceived by Satan, but Adam freely chose.
“Though actually, I have no clue what stepped on the duck means in this context.”
Ahh, how soon you forget!
Friday, March 12, 2010 11:31:55 AM · 978 of 1,289
blue-duncan to P-Marlowe; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg
Three women die together in an accident and go to heaven. When they get there, St. Peter says, “We only have one rule here in heaven: don’t step on the ducks!”
So they enter heaven, and sure enough, there are ducks all over the place. It is almost impossible not to step on a duck, and although they try their best to avoid them, the first woman accidentally steps on one. Along comes St. Peter with the ugliest man she ever saw. St. Peter chains them together and says, “Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to spend eternity chained to this ugly man!”
The next day, the second woman steps accidentally on a duck and along comes St. Peter, who doesn’t miss a thing. With him is another extremely ugly man. He chains them together with the same admonishment as for the first woman.
The third woman has observed all this and, not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly man, is very, very careful where she steps.She manages to go months without stepping on any ducks, but one day St. Peter comes up to her with the most handsome man she has ever laid eyes on ... very tall, long eyelashes, muscular, and thin. St. Peter chains them together without saying a word.
The happy woman says, “I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all of eternity?” The guy says, “I don’t know about you, but I stepped on a duck!”
You mean to imply that women weren't persuasive from their very first breath? <GRIN...>
LOL!
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to them being disqualified by the accident of death."
- G.K. Chesterton
I believe they inalienably exist because this is everyone's world. It's a birthright. We are all citizens of this planet.
Whatever your view of God is, understand that our entire American constitutional system utterly depends on Him for its rational integrity.
More straw men. How can it depend on that if it is not a requirement of American citizens to akcnowledge tjhe existence of God?
The French Revolution was the single most radical separation of church and state in the history of mankind.
Given the makeup of the pre-revolutionary French society (the estates), it is not surprising that the level of polarization and hatred existed under the surface, and hence the savagery and anarchy that resulted.
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.
Napoleon was the native son of the Reovlution, who defeated the Austirans thretaening the Repiblic, and made France successful and respected by her enmeies. He was also very popualr. Nothing unusualt about that.
That would be Napoleon, who plunged Europe into a war fought literally worldwide, which lasted for decades.
War was a common and legally acceptable means of implementing foreign policy in those days. You can't grade Napoleon by 21st century standards.
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.
I really can't disagree with you at all on this.
Try to see the big picture here, dear kosta.... Whose side are you on?
How dare you?! I served this country honorably for 20+ years; six and a half years edeployed overseas, including areas where postal stamps are not required to mail a letter home and where weekends and work hours don's exist; where you sleep and shower with a flack jacked, k-pot and your side arm, where you don't pay any taxes, and draw something called combat pay.
How dare you ask me whose side I am on, just because I don't share your infatuation with some imaginary Platonic entity in the sky? This is America. I don't have to believe in God because I live in freedom. There is no official truth, and no state God here. Not yet anyway.
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.