Replies

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.”

Oh boy! Of course we've all come to expect the default ad hominem attacks against the NYT from the Romanists but now they must layer ad hominem upon ad hominem. Apparantly the credibility of the eye witness testimony of poor Mr. Robinson is linked to his orthodoxy. The author would have us believe that Mr. Robinson is a radical along the lines of Martin Luther bent on destroying the Romanist Church. What the author failed to mention is that the Times claimed they interviewed 10 men that were at this meeting. I would say the author of this article has "Abandon[ed] any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic". LOL!

This is getting pathetically surreal.

I’ve been shocked by the

richly surreal aspects

of most RC posts hereon for more than 10 years.

Most of the RC’s I meet in my face to face life at least give the appearance of being more rational and holding more rational religious and theological views.

Most of them—at least 51% of them—decry at least major chunks of RC/Vatican dogma as so much hogwash—even many of those who attend Mass regularly.

The idea that the Vatican umbrella includes more homogeneity than the Proddy camp is outrageously absurd.

That so many hereon fail to see that or have no courage to admit it is also mind-boggling.

Apparantly the credibility of the eye witness testimony of poor Mr. Robinson is linked to his orthodoxy. The author would have us believe that Mr. Robinson is a radical along the lines of Martin Luther bent on destroying the Romanist Church.

What's "pathetically surreal", as you put it, is the idea that you would pontificate (oh, the irony) on whether or not he's a radical with regards to Church teaching.

According to Australia's own bishops, who just might know a little more about him than you do, they are saying that his book

"...leads in turn to the questioning of 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."

When you've got a firm theological grasp on all things Catholic, you let me know. Until then, what you have to say means absolutely nothing.

I would say the author of this article has "Abandon[ed] any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic". LOL! This is getting pathetically surreal.

You said it. In order to save Ratzinger this guy throws the whole rest of the Vatican under the bus. I loved this part:

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 we have gross dereliction of duty and sexual abuse by the bishops and confusion at the Vatican. But Ratzinger was OK because it wasn't his job to care about child abuse in the 80's and 90's?! What an indictment of the whole Church!!! Just for kicks I found this from Lumen Gentium (Vatican II):

"22. ...... The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. ......" (emphasis added)

With authority comes responsibility, and from this there doesn't seem to be any escape for the Vatican. "It's not my job" doesn't cut it. It's hilarious and sad that in order to defend Ratzinger this Catholic writer winds up savaging the whole Vatican (e.g. including Cardinal Bishops) along with whoever is Pope, including Ratzinger today given all these new stories in the news recently.

From the thread from the other day I hope the plaintiff's lawyers are quoting from this Lumen Gentium to blow the independent contractor theory out of the water.