Originally posted by no1marauder According to you, there can be no normative rules at all because there might be exceptions. Do you know what the word "normative" means?
Again, you can't read. It is utterly clear that PUBLIC DENUNCIATIONS are different from private letters written to the Vatican!
Re: public denunciations
My two questions from the previous post still stand.
The Commission stated this: The variety of the documents, and the moral questions that arise from some of them, attest to the serious endeavor on the part of the editors who prepared them, and the inclusion of documents that then, and subsequently, raised questions about the role of the Holy See speaks to the editors' efforts at objectivity. Indeed, the fact that such questions have been repeatedly raised within the Church itself illustrates the extent to which the Church's understanding of its role in the world has evolved dramatically since the events described in our report.
I believe you are NOW claiming that the Commission was deliberately two-faced by giving the Church credit for raising the issues, while they were conspiring to leak documents and sneakily insinuate that the Church was withholding incriminating documents. Why did the Church ever agree to appoint such rogues to the Commission? I think you've been hanging out with Ivanhoe toooooooooooo much.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Re: public denunciations
My two questions from the previous post still stand.
It is quite clear that the questions weren't based merely on the ADSS as even a casual reading of the preliminary report shows. The sources for PUBLIC DENUNCIATIONS are usually, er public.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Commission stated this: The variety of the documents, and the moral questions that arise from some of them, attest to the serious endeavor on the part of the editors who prepared them, and the inclusion of documents that then, and subsequently, raised questions about the role of the Holy See speaks to the editors' efforts at objectivity. Indeed, the ...[text shortened]... such rogues to the Commission? I think you've been hanging out with Ivanhoe toooooooooooo much.
I believe you are NOW claiming that the Commission was deliberately two-faced by giving the Church credit for raising the issues, while they were conspiring to leak documents and sneakily insinuate that the Church was withholding incriminating documents. Why did the Church ever agree to appoint such rogues to the Commission?
I'm not now claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that the entire Commission was deliberately two-faced. I certainly do think that Bernard Suchecky had an ulterior motive in leaking the preliminary report to the press. He may have had some support within the Commission - though, given the in-fighting in the Commission, he probably had members opposing him as well. I don't know if Suchecky had such motives all along - I'm not claiming any such thing.
Originally posted by no1marauder It is quite clear that the questions weren't based merely on the ADSS as even a casual reading of the preliminary report shows. The sources for PUBLIC DENUNCIATIONS are usually, er public.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Commission stated this: The variety of the documents, and the moral questions that arise from some of them, attest to the serious endeavor on the part of the editors who prepared them, and the inclusion of documents that then, and subsequently, raised questions about the role of the Holy See speaks to the editors' efforts at objectivity. Indeed, the ...[text shortened]... such rogues to the Commission? I think you've been hanging out with Ivanhoe toooooooooooo much.
marauder: "I believe you are NOW claiming that the Commission was deliberately two-faced by giving the Church credit for raising the issues, while they were conspiring to leak documents and sneakily insinuate that the Church was withholding incriminating documents. Why did the Church ever agree to appoint such rogues to the Commission? I think you've been hanging out with Ivanhoe toooooooooooo much."
Divine grace makes the disciples more like Jesus, who had announced before his death that they would be helped by the Holy Spirit of truth. This is one reason, I believe, the Gospel of John calls the Spirit of God the Paraclete, a Greek word that simply means the lawyer for the defense, the defender of the accused before a tribunal. The Paraclete is, among other things, the counterpart of the Accuser: the Spirit of Truth who gives the definitive refutation of the satanic lie. That is why Paul writes, in 1 Corinthians 2:7-8: "We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God. . . . None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
30 Nov '05 04:12
Amen.
Back to Top