Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by Conrau K
Thankyou for answering the question and supporting your assertions with...even bigger assertions.

Don't be so naive. If the Church actually walked the walk of Jesus it wouldn't have the history it has, it wouldn't place its own well-being above its parishioners, it wouldn't hord assets instead of helping the unfortunate, etc.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The handling of the sexual abuse cases by the Church was absolutely criminal and those who conspired to perpetuate the situation should have been criminally prosecuted. The Church showed a serious level of depraved indifference. I have to believe that this would go all the way up to the Pope. The fact that this didn't happen speak volumes. Even the Church ...[text shortened]... restitution to the Churches victims. Victims that it should have protected in the first place.

Whilst I am not here to defend the catholic church I can't help but notice the strong feelings you seem to have about the church. Did something happen to you as part of a church ? Has a Christian treated you badly or worse?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Whilst I am not here to defend the catholic church I can't help but notice the strong feelings you seem to have about the church. Did something happen to you as part of a church ? Has a Christian treated you badly or worse?

Sometimes things are what people tell you they are. The words of Jesus ring true to me. His teaching of salvation through righteousness rings true to me. The idea that you may be "saved from sinning" whilst continuing to sin is illogical, though has proved a good marketing strategy. A marketing strategy that's directly at odds with the words and spirit of the message brought by Jesus. It saddens me that the beautiful vision of Jesus is ignored by so many because of this.

The delusions that the desires of the self can spawn never cease to amaze me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Don't be so naive. If the Church actually walked the walk of Jesus it wouldn't have the history it has, it wouldn't place its own well-being above its parishioners, it wouldn't hord assets instead of helping the unfortunate, etc.

Each diocese has full autonomy over its finances (except for basilicas). There is no single person who hords up all the assets. Furthermore, parish committees (comprised of the laity) often have significant control over church-property. In some parishes, if church-land is sold, it cannot leave the parish; it must be given back to the laity. This happened in my state, (Victoria, Australia) in which a school was sold. The money was used to build a retirement home. Similarly in the past decade or so, the Catholic Church has used a substantial amount of its money to build two universities.

If you want to convince me that the Church is so bad, you need to identify individual people who have horded assets, placed their well-being over others, and who constitute the whole Church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Each diocese has full autonomy over its finances (except for basilicas). There is no single person who hords up all the assets. Furthermore, parish committees (comprised of the laity) often have significant control over church-property. In some parishes, if church-land is sold, it cannot leave the parish; it must be given back to the laity. This happened in ...[text shortened]... ho have horded assets, placed their well-being over others, and who constitute the whole Church.

Even if you only look at the sex abuse cases, it's difficult to think if this as an institution that isn't "bad".

In whose interest was it acting when it didn't turn offending priests over to the authorities?

In whose interest was it acting as it moved offending priests from parish to parish?

In whose interest was it acting as they hid behind bankruptcy rather than pay restitution?

Ask yourself if each parish/diocese acted autonomously in coming up with the same depraved solutions or if control was through some higher authority within the hierarchy of the Church?

You should watch "Deliver Us from Evil" if you haven't. My heart broke for those people who were abused by those who should have been protecting them and the church authorities who allowed it to continue. The victims were abused sexually and then they and their families were abused by the power of the Church.

In light of the history of the Church, this rings of "business as usual" rather than as an isolated incident.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Even if you only look at the sex abuse cases, it's difficult to think if this as an institution that isn't "bad".

In whose interest was it acting when it didn't turn offending priests over to the authorities?

In whose interest was it acting as it moved offending priests from parish to parish?

In whose interest was it acting as they hid behind ban ...[text shortened]... of the Church, this rings of "business as usual" rather than as an isolated incident.

Again, who are you referring to? Some dioceses covered up assaults; some did not. And even those that did cover up allegations or move priests between dioceses, their motivations were not necessarily self-interested. It is not coherent to talk about the church as institution which acts out of its own interests, because dioceses will have different policies. In Australia, one diocese has established a centre to help victims of abuse; the other dioceses have not. It would be incoherent to judge that the Catholic Church is indifferent to victims because of these dioceses, or that it is compassionate because of this diocese.

This exchange is futile. I was referring to the monetary arrangements of the church. Your ignorance exposed, you once again raise the issue of sex-abuse. As I have already acknowledged, the scandal does show that people in the church have acted immorally; it does not, however, prove that the church is part of the system or even that it is trying to protect its own financial base. I have already offered a number of counterexamples in which the church has given money to the poor and shown no attachment to commercial success.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, who are you referring to? Some dioceses covered up assaults; some did not. And even those that did cover up allegations or move priests between dioceses, their motivations were not necessarily self-interested. It is not coherent to talk about the church as institution which acts out of its own interests, because dioceses will have different po ...[text shortened]... s in which the church has given money to the poor and shown no attachment to commercial success.

"If you want to convince me that the Church is so bad, you need to identify individual people who have horded assets, placed their well-being over others, and who constitute the whole Church."

Sexual abuse of parishioners isn't "bad"?

The handling of sexual abuse cases by the Church wasn't "bad"?

The decision to protect Church assets instead of paying restitution isn't "bad".

Filing bankruptcy isn't to "protect its own financial base"?''

All these things aren't placing the well-being of the Church above the well-being of its victims?

Giving money to the poor undoes none of this. Would a major corporation that illegallly and grossly pollutes the environment get a free pass because they gave money to the poor?

Your lack of objectivity is shocking. You're trying to defend the indefensible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"[b]If you want to convince me that the Church is so bad, you need to identify individual people who have horded assets, placed their well-being over others, and who constitute the whole Church."

Sexual abuse of parishioners isn't "bad"?

The handling of sexual abuse cases by the Church wasn't "bad"?

The decision to protect Church asset ...[text shortened]... our lack of objectivity is shocking. You're trying to defend the indefensible.[/b]

Sexual abuse of parishioners isn't "bad"?

Sexual abuse of anyone is bad.

The handling of sexual abuse cases by the Church wasn't "bad"?

What is this Church you speak of? Each diocese (as I have explained already) is responsible for itself. They may have different policies and different religious formation programs for seminarians. While each national episcopal conference seeks to establish a universal norm for their dioceses, it is up to the local ordinary to interpret or even ignore them. The best you can say is that individual dioceses have been bad.

The decision to protect Church assets instead of paying restitution isn't "bad".

What assets are being protected? Numerous churches have been sold in America to fund compensation. And what dioceses are not paying restitution?

Filing bankruptcy isn't to "protect its own financial base"?''

Some dioceses are bankrupt. They may have no financial base.

All these things aren't placing the well-being of the Church above the well-being of its victims?

As I have explained, it is not coherent to talk about the Church as an individual entity. It comprises thousands of different dioceses.

Giving money to the poor undoes none of this. Would a major corporation that illegallly and grossly pollutes the environment get a free pass because they gave money to the poor?

I never mentioned a free pass. My point is that the Catholic Church does a lot for the poor. It does not just give money; it has religious orders devoted to caring for them. Just because a few religious and bishops have behaved criminally, does not mean that the good works of other Catholics are undone. Amazing how, because it suits you, these religious and bishops constitute the church - so because some diocese files for bankruptsy, the whole Catholic Church must be protecting its own financial base - but when Catholic organisations help the poor, that can be ignored.

Originally posted by Conrau K


As I have explained, it is not coherent to talk about the Church as an individual entity.

My point is that the Catholic Church does a lot for the poor.

Absurdly ironic, itsn't it?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Absurdly ironic, itsn't it?

Point taken. I will qualify that it is incoherent to treat the Catholic Church as an individual in regards to sexual abuse because there is no uniform policy and because individual dioceses are responsible for priests. It is coherent, however, to talk about the beliefs, liturgical practices and laws of the Church because Rome has given norms for these.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[

What is this Church you speak of? Each diocese (as I have explained already) is responsible for itself. They may have different policies and different religious formation programs for seminarians. While each national episcopal conference seeks to establish a universal norm for their dioceses, it is up to the local ordinary to interpret or even ignore ...[text shortened]... to talk about the Church as an individual entity. It comprises thousands of different dioceses.

Four Marks of the Church:

ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

If it were merely individual churches united by a common belief, they would not be sending money to maintain a castle in Vatican City, and the king in that castle would have no authority over the churches and diocese.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Four Marks of the Church:

[b]ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

If it were merely individual churches united by a common belief, they would not be sending money to maintain a castle in Vatican City, and the king in that castle would have no authority over the churches and diocese.[/b]

I have already clarified this point. It is coherent to say that the Church believes this, or the Church does that. It is not, however, coherent to say that the Church is indifferent to abuse victims - because we can only judge by the actions of independent dioceses.

Furthermore, in Catholic theology, a Church is defined as an assembly of believers around a bishop. So a diocese is a Church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already clarified this point. It is coherent to say that the Church believes this, or the Church does that. It is not, however, coherent to say that the Church is indifferent to abuse victims - because we can only judge by the actions of independent dioceses.

Furthermore, in Catholic theology, a Church is defined as an assembly of believers around a bishop. So a diocese is a Church.

No, we can also judge by actions of Pope John Paul II and the actions off the College of Cardinals. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/11/cardinal.law/index.html Although Cardinal Law had to resign his position in shame, he was in effect given a promotion to the Basillica of St. Mary Major in Rome, and was also one of the few people selected to give a Mass in honor of Pope JP when he died. We can judge by the fact that the pope seems to have done nothing before 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3872499.stm.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already clarified this point. It is coherent to say that the Church believes this, or the Church does that. It is not, however, coherent to say that the Church is indifferent to abuse victims - because we can only judge by the actions of independent dioceses.

Furthermore, in Catholic theology, a Church is defined as an assembly of believers around a bishop. So a diocese is a Church.

A diocese is not independent, though, because the pope has consistently nullified the ordination of women and married men by bishops. If the diocese were independent, the bishops would be allowed to make those decisions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already clarified this point. It is coherent to say that the Church believes this, or the Church does that. It is not, however, coherent to say that the Church is indifferent to abuse victims - because we can only judge by the actions of independent dioceses.

Now you are catching yourself out. It is coherent to say that the Church is indifferent to abuse victims if there is either a policy in the Church to that effect or, in fact, if there is no policy to the contrary.
I agree that the actions of individual diocese should not be ascribed to the whole Church, but when the whole Church is aware of the individual diocese's actions and does nothing then the whole Church can rightly be accused of being indifferent to those actions.