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.
Exactly. The more we know the more we discover we don't know. Humbling.
Hi Harley. Thanks for your reply.
I hope I’m not assuming too much if I ask you if you remember when you first started believing in predestination and what it was that finally convinced you?
The topic of Judas Iscariot is a free-will nightmare big time. It lies at the heart of it.
Nope. All men are fallen and God would be "just" to impose punishment on every human being ever born.
The miracle is that God has chosen to save some men from their sins by His mercy, and not according to their actions which, when not of faith, are always and only sin.
And as Paul tells us, salvation is the free gift of God by His grace through faith in His Son, given to those whom God has ordained to be His family for no reason within themselves. The reason is God's good pleasure alone.
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
Here's a nice link I found yesterday...
Isaac and Ishmael were both sons of Abraham – but only Isaac was heir to the promises. Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac – but only Jacob was chosen to carry on the Jewish line. Significantly, in both examples the younger son was chosen, not the older. This reversal of tradition emphasizes God's sovereignty, since no one can say it was the “natural” choice that was made. It was SUPERnatural choice... Mercy is not a matter of fairness, or justice, or deserving. If deserved, it would not be mercy. If merely just, it would not be amazing. If fair, no one could ever be saved. Mercy is undeserved kindness shown to depraved wretches who are headed headlong for hell. What better way to say UNDESERVED than to call it a gift? In His mercy, God does not allow all of fallen humanity to perish. He sovereignly selects those who will be saved, and this is His absolute right as Creator. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.” In doing this, He leaves the lost to their choice and the justice they deserve. The saved are brought to a point of choosing Him, and often they do not realize until much later that they were first chosen by Him. This is pure irony: God chooses us, therefore we choose Him, but we cannot know He chooses us until after we have chosen Him. Paul shows that in Israel's history the chosen were divided from the unchosen according to God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:7-13):
Here's a lovely sermon about the difference between mercy and debt...
And Calvin's take on mercy...
"...As we have said, there is no real difference among men, except in their hidden election. Some theologians would make foreknowledge the mother of election, and that very foolishly and childishly. They say that some men are chosen and others rejected by God, because God, from whom nothing is hidden, foresees of what sort each man will be. But I ask, Whence comes virtue to one and vice to the other? If they say, “From free will,” surely creation was before free will. This is one point. Besides, we know that all men were created alike in the person of Adam. . . . And what does this mean except that the condition of all who come from the one root is the same? I am not discussing “special gifts.” I admit that if our nature had not been corrupted and we all had the same assurance of blessedness, we would be endowed with a variety of gifts. . . . But since in Adam all are sinners, deserving of eternal death, it is obvious that nothing but sin will be found in men. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge cannot be the reason of our election, because when God [looks into the future and] surveys all mankind, he will find them all, from the first to the last, under the same curse. So we see how foolishly triflers prattle when they ascribe to mere naked foreknowledge what must be founded on God’s good pleasure. . . . When Moses prays to God not to break his covenant with Abraham, God answers, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” What does he mean? He means that the reason for God’s keeping some for himself and rejecting 295 others is to be sought nowhere but in God himself. When he says, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” the repetition may seem empty and dull; but it is in reality emphatic. . . . The reason for compassion is compassion itself..."
Are you stalling?
Yes. Sure. Alrighty. Definitely. Absolutely. But of course. Mais, qui. You betcha...
I’ll give it another shot, just trying to make sure I’m not mind-reading here.
To the question: If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
You answer: “No, because If God exists, everything is by, for and through Jesus Christ, as Colossians 1 tells us.”
Would this be accurate?
I actually expected more from this exchange. I gave you more than enough affirmatives to your question in post 985. Perhaps you haven’t read post 985. If you have and it’s still not clear enough, maybe you need new specs.
What and exquisite conundrum. In the absence of freewill she has no authority or ability to accept it. If she either willfully accepts or rejects it she affirms it.
This is very hypothetical for my taste. There is no conflict between free will and predestination because of what God is and what man is. Man is given free will since creation because he is made in the image of God. We see that man is nealry always depicted acting on his own in the scripture. It is not like he is given free will for a while or after a while. Yet God can predestine the Elect in accordance with their free will because God has foreknowledge.
Christian Unity
The unity has to be doctrinal unity or else it is fake unity. It does not have to be doctrinal uniformity, but it has to be unity in the essentials. The docrinal differences between the Protestants and the rest of Christianity are too deep for that at the moment, and it appears to me that the fissures grow.
I would be happy if the Protestants recognized that no matter how foreign Catholic theology is to them, it is consistent with the same scripture they are reading, and in fact often consistent with a more literal and direct interpretation of the scripture that the Protestant exegetical constructs. That would not be unity in the sense of John 17:21, comparable to the hypostatic unity of the persons of the Trinity, but it would be peaceful coexistence of the kind that exists between Protestant denominations. But we don't seem to be able to reach even that.
We surely can cooperate on cultural and political matters.
Yep.
Thanks for your reply.
Q.E.D.
“The woman YOU gave me...” Eve says “It was the serpent” and who's left for the serpent to blame?
However God does say he'll clean up the mess Adam and Eve made.
“The topic of Judas Iscariot is a free-will nightmare big time. It lies at the heart of it.”
O.K., let's get to the heart of it. Judas kept the money funds and claimed a concern for the poor when a woman used an expensive, very, very expensive oil on Jesus. Judas is indignant and calls it a waste. (Yes, I know one account says “disciples”, plural, but John 13:29 would seem to indicate it was one disciple, Judas, that was speaking.)
Judas went out of way to betray Jesus and after making his choice regretted it but what does he do? Go and ask forgiveness? No, tries to reverse what has already taken place. He wants to give back the blood money.
Where does Judas not exercise his free will? His regret indicate he knew HE had made a wrong decision, his suicide was a choice too even if he was driven by guilt.
So where and why would anyone draw the conclusion that God being charge is incompatible with allowing Judas to follow through on his choices?
Here they are, with a bit extra context for some.
1 Cor. 15:51,52.[49] Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. [50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption.
[51] Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory. [55] O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
Philippians 3:20,21.
[16] Nevertheless whereunto we are come, that we be of the same mind, let us also continue in the same rule. [17] Be ye followers of me, brethren, and observe them who walk so as you have our model. [18] For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; [19] Whose end is destruction; whose God is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things. [20] But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ,
[21] Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
[12] And we will not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep, that you be not sorrowful, even as others who have no hope. [13] For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again; even so them who have slept through Jesus, will God bring with him. [14] For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. [15] For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first.
[16] Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord. [17] Wherefore, comfort ye one another with these words.
Titus 2:13
[11] For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men; [12] Instructing us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world, [13] Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, [14] Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works.
And finally
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ."(1 Thess. 5:9).None of that say anything other than Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, and the Elect will have eternal life with Him from that point on in an incorrupt state. Yes, it is the Catholic teaching, it is in fact a part of the Nicean Creed. Some references to future troubles in the Scripture refer to events that have since then occurred, for example, the destruction of the Second Temple and the reign of the Church. Others possibly predict events that are yet to come. All these troubles, sometimes referred to as Tribulation, are what we are going through for the past two thousand years. The Trubulation is now. With the Second Coming of Christ the Church Militant on earth will reunite with the Church Triumphant in heavenly Jerusalem, peace and justice will reign (Mt 25 again), and the flow of time will stop. That, more or less, is the Catholic teaching on the end times.
Eph 2:10 clearly states that we are to walk in the good works that God has prepared for us, if we are to be saved. So, salvation is by grace alone — not of ourselves so we get no glory — through both faith and good works. That is what that scripture states. The fact that we are God’s “poiema” does not change it, and “workmanship” is a good translation of it.
I don’t think it is any kind of space-age theoretical physics. God created time, so He is the master of it and He exists outside of it, like I exist outside of a sketch I made on a piece of paper. Like I can draw a comic book from the last frame to the first, He can predestine what we are yet to freely choose.
A blasphemer in my youth, I have in my “changed” life become quite sensitive to the use of the Holy Names of God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit.
It causes me now to have actual physical pain when I hear them misused.
I am also careful to not use certain names at all. There are those on the public stage, for example, The Usurper we have in office today, whose name I will not speak or write.
Some might call that a paranoid obsession.
I call it prudence.
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.