Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by Conrau K
[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. Wh ancial base - but when Catholic organisations help the poor, that can be ignored.[/b]

Here's an article that addresses some of the issues we've been discussing
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169909,00.html

So much for not being part of the system and the autonomy of the dioceses.

Here are a couple of excerpts:
The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI (search) of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in Monday's filing that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."


The lawsuit alleges Ratzinger, who headed the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming pope, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution.

The lawsuit cites a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that "grave" crimes such as the sexual abuse (search) of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to "pontifical secret."

Daniel Shea, attorney for one of the plaintiffs, has said such secret proceedings amounted to a conspiracy to cover up the crimes.

The Vatican (search) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have insisted the secret church procedures in the sex abuse case were not designed to cover up abuse nor to prevent victims from reporting crimes to law enforcement authorities. The document deals with church law - not keeping secrets from secular authorities, they say.


Here's another written before the ruling was handed down citing the issues surrounding the case:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1126083917974

It just doesn't pass the "smell test". Not even close.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
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.

I did not mean independent in that way. If dioceses had the independence to ordain women, then we would no longer be able to talk coherently about what the Catholic Church believes. I have only argued that dioceses are independent financially and also in matters of priestly formation and dealing with sex-abuse - although there are a number of canonical norms in regards to the formation of priests and the obligations of the ordinary to report abuse to the CDF.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
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 gi ...[text shortened]... the pope seems to have done nothing before 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3872499.stm.

JPII and Cardinal Law were probably old chums. They are not, however, the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 individu ...[text shortened]... oes nothing then the whole Church can rightly be accused of being indifferent to those actions.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed. But I doubt it is the case that the whole Church has done nothing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's an article that addresses some of the issues we've been discussing
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169909,00.html

So much for not being part of the system and the autonomy of the dioceses.

Here are a couple of excerpts:
[b]The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI (search) of conspiring ...[text shortened]... e.jsp?id=1126083917974

It just doesn't pass the "smell test". Not even close.

I don't get it. What does this prove?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I am applying to a Jesuit school and I suddenly I need to be familiar with this particular topic.

LMFAO

I'll get back to you when the tears stop streaming down my face.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Agreed. But I doubt it is the case that the whole Church has done nothing.

Then why not say so rather than try to pretend that the claim is incoherent?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then why not say so rather than try to pretend that the claim is incoherent?

Because it is incoherent. Different dioceses have responded differently. There are also numerous other divisions between dioceses.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't get it. What does this prove?

Given that you seem to be in denial, it's not at all surprising that you still "don't get it".

Let's start with the issue of "autonomy".

Seems to me that Ratzinger instituted a mechanism for declaring that a central authority would handle all "grave crimes" under "pontifical secret". Does that fit under your definition of "autonomy"? Do you believe Ratzinger made a unilateral decision? Perhaps you believe the dioceses were free to ignore this declaration?

"The lawsuit cites a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that "grave" crimes such as the sexual abuse (search) of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to "pontifical secret."

If you haven't seen it, you really should watch "Deliver Us from Evil".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Given that you seem to be in denial, it's not at all surprising that you still "don't get it".

Let's start with the issue of "autonomy".

Seems to me that Ratzinger instituted a mechanism for declaring that a [b]central authority would handle all "grave crimes" under "pontifical secret". Does that fit under your definition of "autonomy"? Do you b ...[text shortened]...

If you haven't seen it, you really should watch "Deliver Us from Evil".[/b]

You sound like you may have had dealings with the Catholic Church. If so has this affected the extreme nature of your theology on Jesus? I say this because you come across as highly driven in this matter and rigid as well. This is often a sign of a deep emotional investment in a set position and whilst I am right behind you on your criticism of the Catholic church on abuse , I'm wondering if it affects your outlook on the church in general.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You sound like you may have had dealings with the Catholic Church. If so has this affected the extreme nature of your theology on Jesus? I say this because you come across as highly driven in this matter and rigid as well. This is often a sign of a deep emotional investment in a set position and whilst I am right behind you on your criticism of the Catholic church on abuse , I'm wondering if it affects your outlook on the church in general.

I think it less extreme to focus on the words of Jesus than to focus on extrapolations of the words of Jesus or extrapolations of extrapolations of the words of Jesus. You seem to think otherwise. Your belief system is incoherent. I suspect that it's because you place your beliefs above logic and reason. This seems to render you incapable of participating in a rational discussion.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think it less extreme to focus on the words of Jesus than to focus on extrapolations of the words of Jesus or extrapolations of extrapolations of the words of Jesus. You seem to think otherwise. Your belief system is incoherent. I suspect that it's because you place your beliefs above logic and reason. This seems to render you incapable of participating in a rational discussion.

"Your belief system is incoherent." 🙄

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Your belief system is incoherent." 🙄[/b]

Well put 🙂

Have you read any of KM's "free will/omniscience" threads? If you find his views coherent, maybe you should help him explain them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think it less extreme to focus on the words of Jesus than to focus on extrapolations of the words of Jesus or extrapolations of extrapolations of the words of Jesus. You seem to think otherwise. Your belief system is incoherent. I suspect that it's because you place your beliefs above logic and reason. This seems to render you incapable of participating in a rational discussion.

But I have already argued convincingly that Jesus's words require extrapolation by neccesity and you have had no counter argument. Jesus spoke in parables , imagery and metaphor and admitted himself that the truth he had put forward was incomplete and was to be completed by the work of the Holy Spirit (" When he the comforter comes he will guide you into all truth" ) .

Add to this the fact that we know much of the time the disciples went around confused and unsure of his message , often asking him what he was talking about and not always getting a clear answer. It's even clear at one point that some of the disciples hadn't even realised he was the Son Of God.

So your idea that Jesus's teachings are straight forward is just plain bunkum. It's your position that doesn't add up because on one hand you say "respect the words of Jesus" , whilst at the same time you seem to throw 75% of what he said and did in the bin (presumably because it doesn't fit your rigid position)! That's more than incoherent it's just intellectually dishonest!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well put 🙂

Have you read any of KM's "free will/omniscience" threads? If you find his views coherent, maybe you should help him explain them.

Maybe you should have a go yourself before criticising others? If you have a clear answer to the free will/omniscience problem then say so. Maybe you have no interest in resolving it , prefering instead to not believe in the Father of Jesus? But what would Jesus make of that?

You see all you know how to do is snipe and repeat yourself. But as soon as any challenge comes you are lost and revert to your "system". Your system only "seems" coherent because it's intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and singing the same old mantras to yourself. Any time you face the real challenges of your position you don't know what to do , or rather you do ...and that's to run off with your ball claiming we are deceivers and followers of St Paul. It's just too convenient. How do you maintain any self respect when you know that you have not properly engaged in a defence of your position?