Originally posted by knightmeisterLike usual your post is filled with lies, half-truths, distortions, etc. You've shown time and again that truth is all but ignored in KM's world.
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 in ...[text shortened]... ur rigid position)! That's more than incoherent it's just intellectually dishonest!
You're arguments are childish. And like a willful child, there's little point in explaining anything to you.
I don't know that there's much sadder than a fool with confidence.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou pose no challenge - only the babblings of a buffoon.
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 respect when you know that you have not properly engaged in a defence of your position?
Your pride continues to get the better of you.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAmazing how my self-serving greed and arrogance led to this education being offered to me for free, isn't it?
LMFAO
I'll get back to you when the tears stop streaming down my face.
Maybe it's one of those things like "God is one person and three people at the same time". You need faith to accept it.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSeems to me that Ratzinger instituted a mechanism for declaring that a [b]central authority would handle all "grave crimes" under "pontifical secret".[/b]
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
If you haven't seen it, you really should watch "Deliver Us from Evil".[/b]
It is very simple to substantiate: look up the apostolic letters that Pope John Paul II sent. If you happen to know Latin, it should not be difficult. Most likely, you can find it here,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/index.htm
Does that fit under your definition of "autonomy"?
Yes. From what I read of the American bishops, Ratzinger's role would be to investigate violations of canon law. Ratzinger would run an ecclesiastical judicial enquiry that ran parallel with common law. Individual bishops would still be responsible to state legislation; they would still need to report abuses to police.
Do you believe Ratzinger made a unilateral decision? Perhaps you believe the dioceses were free to ignore this declaration?
Do you even know what the declaration is? Foxnews (not a reliable newsource) only gives vague accusations from lawyers. How can you judge Ratzinger if you are ignorant of the contents of this "declaration" (if it even is a declaration)?
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm really not interested enough in this topic to hunt down letters. Evidently you aren't either or you would have.
[b]Seems to me that Ratzinger instituted a mechanism for declaring that a [b]central authority would handle all "grave crimes" under "pontifical secret".[/b]
It is very simple to substantiate: look up the apostolic letters that Pope John Paul II sent. If you happen to know Latin, it should not be difficult. Most likely, you can find it here,
http:/ ...[text shortened]... you are ignorant of the contents of this "declaration" (if it even is a declaration)?[/b]
Either you're incredibly naive or you just enjoy making arguments for fun. I suspect it's the latter. I'm thinking you could have a really good time with KM's "free will/omniscience" threads.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KPerhaps the letter in question is Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela which uses the term "pontifical secret." You can read it here and judge for yourself.
[b]Seems to me that Ratzinger instituted a mechanism for declaring that a [b]central authority would handle all "grave crimes" under "pontifical secret".[/b]
It is very simple to substantiate: look up the apostolic letters that Pope John Paul II sent. If you happen to know Latin, it should not be difficult. Most likely, you can find it here,
http:/ f you are ignorant of the contents of this "declaration" (if it even is a declaration)?[/b]
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/SacramentorumAndNormaeEnglish.htm#_ftn21
The quotes used in the two article you provide do not seem so scandalous in their context.
EDIT: Important to note: the letter does not deal with sex-abuse per so, but with grave offenses against the sacraments - one of which is sexual solicitation during confession (although the letter is not explicit on this matter).
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have hunted down the letter. It is not so easy given that there is no search engine to locate the right one among hundreds of letters. This wikipedia article did help:
I'm really not interested enough in this topic to hunt down letters. Evidently you aren't either or you would have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ratzinger_as_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith#Response_to_sex_abuse_scandal
On the matter of the pontifical secret,
When plaintiffs in Houston, Texas began a suit arguing obstruction of justice, in April 2005, the Archbishop of Houston, Joseph Fiorenza, issued a statement elucidating “pontifical secret”: “These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]Given its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible?
On the matter of the pontifical secret,When plaintiffs in Houston, Texas began a suit arguing obstruction of justice, in April 2005, the Archbishop of Houston, Joseph Fiorenza, issued a statement elucidating “pontifical secret”: “[b]These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in ...[text shortened]... reported to legal authorities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret
Do you find it credible?
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.
June 2002. Do you find this to be egregiously late?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAll the information is there. Please show where the document in question instructs bishops to cover up sexual abuse.
Given its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible?
Do you find it credible?[/b]
Caveat: The document is about violations of the sacrament. Therefore, if any pontifical secret is imposed on victims, it could only be those abused in confessional - a problem also dealt with in Crimen Sollicitationis. (You can look up the John Jay report to find how few are actually abused in the confessional.)
The relevance of this document becomes even more irrelevant, given that bishops deny that the charge of "pontifical secret" prevented victims going to police. But if you want to challenge that, the onus is on you to find where it says in Secreta continere that the charge of secrecy applied to victims who wanted to report crimes to police.
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. Do you believe everything that the Bush adminstration publishes also?
All the information is there. Please show where the document in question instructs bishops to cover up sexual abuse.
Caveat: The document is about violations of the sacrament. Therefore, if any pontifical secret is imposed on victims, it could only be those abused in confessional - a problem also dealt with in Crimen Sollicitationis. (You can loo ...[text shortened]... inere[/i] that the charge of secrecy applied to victims who wanted to report crimes to police.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat is the point of this question? Your accusation that the Vatican sanctioned a cover up is based on this Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela . You are the one who believes that it has some significance. So please demonstrate which aspects prove the Vatican's complicity in cover-ups.
lol. Do you believe everything that the Bush adminstration publishes also?
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI'll repeat this. I think you missed my edit the first time anyway.
What is the point of this question? Your accusation that the Vatican sanctioned a cover up is based on this Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela . You are the one who believes that it has some significance. So please demonstrate which aspects prove the Vatican's complicity in cover-ups.
Given its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible?
Do you find it credible?
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.
June 2002. Do you find this to be egregiously late?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneGiven its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible? Do you find it credible?
I'll repeat this. I think you missed my edit the first time anyway.
[b]Given its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible?
Do you find it credible?
The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.
June 2002. Do you find this to be egregiously late?
[/b]
Let me repeat again: you have provided an example of a case which implicates this document, Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, as part of a Vatican complicity in cover-ups. If you reject the credibility of this document, are you saying that the case (which you state proves that Ratzinger had unilateral control in the cover-ups) has no basis?
June 2002. Do you find this to be egregiously late?
Perhaps it was intended to prevent idiots from misinterpreting their documents. Hence the need for the charter to clarify whom the "pontifical secret" applies to and in what instances.