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.
Now you just know I'm gonna critique definitions here.. :)
I think you mean hypothesis in this case. In science a theory is closer to a law - the main difference being that theory is usually more complex, involving more factors (or laws).
A theory explains related observations, is based upon a proven hypothesis and has been verified or repeated by multiple researchers. Both theories and laws are accepted as true, used to predict events, advance new technology, etc.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity be an example. It was "proven" true by experiment and prediction. Newton's laws of motion still hold for certain frames of reference but at high speeds Special Relativity must be taken into account for accuracy.Newton's are still called Laws.
It may be that E=MC2 is supplanted by another "theory" which is more accurate, but, if this occurs, likely it will become like Newton's, accurate except for.. IOW, still true or works, but..
Anyway "theory" is not a pejorative term for science; hypothesis or "one man's hypothesis" would be.
If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
I would disagree. I believe that God WILL do the simply because He ordained it:
Well, I thought that when you were born again old things have past away and everything become new as you become a new creature in Christ. What you are implying is that really nothing changes. It's an intellectual exercise.
Life is Christocentric, whether men are aware of that fact or not.
I hope you got the irony of the cartoon. Calvin had to go flying off the cliff in the snow because that was his nature. And his free will didn't help him when he wanted to fly, but couldn't. His will was limited, just like ours is.
If your "demonstration" entails some gruesome story and the question, "Did God do this?" I will save you the effort. God did not "do it," but God permits evil to occur because it somehow plays a part in His plan for His creation.
Thankfully, we believe Paul who assures us that "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
"All things."
There is either God’s will or man’s will. Man does not have a “free will” to do the things of God unless he is given that will by God. If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Only a regenerated person is set free to do the things of God and we must be set free by the Son.
Amen!
AMEN!
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
Hey! I've got that: all I have to do is remove my "store-boughts"... LOL!!
LOL!!!
LOL they also left out freely!
Free will:
It means exactly what it says.
Now, if the world was made by God and God is in charge, and is a Sovereign omniscient and omnipotent deity, then every second of this existence is exactly according to his will and pleasure. Otherwise it is not his world and he is not in charge.
Now, some may say that God allows man to make his own decisions foreknowing that choices he will make will conform to God's will. Likewise, God will disallow choices that would interfere with his plan.
That's as good as just admitting that everything that happens conforms to God's will, or he is no God. So, what purpose would man's free will accomplish?
Whatever you require: If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
I answered your question. All the theological world is waiting with baited breath to see you prove what has eluded the greatest minds for centuries.
Well, yes, theory in science is supported by observational/measured data; it is a working model. But it is not the same as uncontested fact.
Ptolemy's navigational system is a working model, which works fine even today, but is completely flawed as far as the solar system and planetary motions are concerned.
So, just because observational data "confirm" the hypothesis doesn't mean the world is how the working model describes it!
Also, its inherent incompatibility with Quantum mechanics suggests that either or both models are seriously flawed.
Both working models are based on postulates which have yet to be conclusively proven. At this time, there are new discoveries that seriously challenge these gold-standards of the late 20th century cosmology.
Not really. If "old things have passed away and everything becomes new" then why do you continue to sin?
Yeppers. Plus we still don’t know what we don’t know. :)
Help me out then. Was it "Yes" "No" or "Maybe"?
:)
Some may say this, some may say that. So what?
Some people are just unwilling to ‘man up’ and accept responsibility for their decisions because the results were disagreeable to them. When presented alternative courses of action they make a choice and regret the results because they were unwilling to choose a better but more difficult course of action so now they whine that they “had no choice” and comfort themselves thereby.
“LOL they also left out freely!”
They also left out “illusion” according to your previous comments:
“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.”
I guess that “illusion” business is supposed to ease the burden of responsibility for decisions made.
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.