Catholic Social Teaching

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Given its history, why would I find anything the Church says credible? Do you find it credible?

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 c ...[text shortened]... need for the charter to clarify whom the "pontifical secret" applies to and in what instances.[/b]

Perhaps it was. And perhaps everything that the Bush adminstration publishes is true.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps it was. And perhaps everything that the Bush adminstration publishes is true.

You are clearly being evasive. You have referred to a case which alleges that this document instructed bishops to cover-up abuse; now that the document is before you, in readable English, you are unable to locate any suggestion of a cover-up in the document.

Furthermore, it is also very intellectually weak of you to provide a case dated in 2004, knowing (or ignoring or naively not investigating) that it has been discredited.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are clearly being evasive. You have referred to a case which alleges that this document instructed bishops to cover-up abuse; now that the document is before you, in readable English, you are unable to locate any suggestion of a cover-up in the document.

Furthermore, it is also very intellectually weak of you to provide a case dated in 2004, knowing (or ignoring or naively not investigating) that it has been discredited.

You seem inordinately fixated on that letter. Especially since there's no way to confirm that it's the letter in question. You also seem to be ignoring the broader issue of the credibility of the Church. If the Church isn't credible, why would anything it publishes be credible?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem inordinately fixated on that letter. Especially since there's no way to confirm that it's the letter in question. Are you a college student or something?

That letter is the only argument for your contention that the Catholic Church had a policy of cover-up, that it part of the system, and that it is not just independent dioceses that have shown no compassion to victims.

I am interested to know your reasons for rejecting the veracity of the letter. Wikipedia has used it and claimed it as the basis of the law suit; bishop-acountability (generally hostile to the Catholic Church and negative about the cover-ups) translated it (and why would they if had no relevance? Presumably it must be the one referred to in the law suit). Perhaps I am wrong about the letter, but as you have raised this case as your evidence, then the burden is on you to provide the document in question.

Yes, I am a Uni student. I do not see how this is relevant to the thread. I am not interested in ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If the Church isn't credible, why would anything it publishes be credible?

Because the link I provided is to one of the most aggressive anti-abuse campaigners against the Catholic Church. They have no vested interests.

Originally posted by Conrau K
That letter is the only argument for your contention that the Catholic Church had a policy of cover-up, that it part of the system, and that it is not just independent dioceses that have shown no compassion to victims.

I am interested to know your reasons for rejecting the veracity of the letter. Wikipedia has used it and claimed it as the basis of the ...[text shortened]... do not see how this is relevant to the thread. I am not interested in ad hominem attacks.

Do you honestly believe that the actual inner workings of the Church would be available on the www?

The reason I asked about you being a college student is because your line of inquiry seemed to be consistent of what I'd expect from one.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you honestly believe that the actual inner workings of the Church would be available on the www?

Yes; the letter would have been submitted to court and made public. Furthermore, there are thousands of bishops in the world who would have received the letter; most likely, as well, they would have needed canon lawyers to translate it. I doubt that a false version could go unchallenged, given that so many people would have read it.

Perhaps you ought to raise your concerns with bishop-accountability and wikipedia.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes; the letter would have been submitted to court and made public. Furthermore, there are thousands of bishops in the world who would have received the letter; most likely, as well, they would have needed canon lawyers to translate it. I doubt that a false version could go unchallenged, given that so many people would have read it.

Perhaps you ought to raise your concerns with bishop-accountability and wikipedia.

I'm talking about the actual inner workings. There's an important distinction to be made here. Think bigger picture than the letter.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm talking about the actual inner workings. There's an important distinction to be made here. Think bigger picture than the letter.

How do you know about the inner working of the Catholic Church?

Am I to suppose that you have abandoned your single scrap of evidence that suggests the Vatican engaged complicitly in cover-ups?

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is not the Catholic doctrine at all. The formula is actually, God is one nature, but three people.

I see. So it's a polytheistic religion, right?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I see. So it's a polytheistic religion, right?

No; there is only one God. The term "person" is a medieval term that denotes the thing that does the action. So one God whose actions occur by three persons.

Originally posted by Conrau K
How do you know about the inner working of the Catholic Church?

Am I to suppose that you have abandoned your single scrap of evidence that suggests the Vatican engaged complicitly in cover-ups?

There's no way an organization with that kind of power and wealth is going to be transparent. Especially an organization with the history of the Church. You can't really be this naive. I looked at some of your past posts and I get the impression that you post pretty much in an effort to hone your skills for a class or something. It's okay, but someday you'll come to understand that academia and truth have a pretty wide gulf between them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There's no way an organization with that kind of power and wealth is going to be transparent. Especially an organization with the history of the Church. You can't really be this naive. I looked at some of your past posts and I get the impression that you post pretty much in an effort to hone your skills for a class or something. It's okay, but someday you'll come to understand that academia and truth have a pretty wide gulf between them.

There's no way an organization with that kind of power and wealth is going to be transparent. Especially an organization with the history of the Church.

As I have explained, I reject your use of the term "church" as incoherent. The people who initiated the crusades are not the same people who concealed abuses; the individual dioceses which moved abusers from one parish another do not constitute the entirety of the Church. You seem to regard the Catholic Church as a single entity that is a-historical. This is incoherent.

I looked at some of your past posts and I get the impression that you post pretty much in an effort to hone your skills for a class or something.

WTF?

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; there is only one God. The term "person" is a medieval term that denotes the thing that does the action. So one God whose actions occur by three persons.

Ok, I don't care how you phrase it. It still requires faith because it doesn't make any sense. IMO it's a fundamentally flawed idea that has come to be because people like polytheism, and they like monotheism. The Catholic obsession with saints is similar. These are attempts to make the religion both polytheistic and monotheistic. The Muslims make far more sense on this issue than the Christians.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Ok, I don't care how you phrase it. It still requires faith because it doesn't make any sense. IMO it's a fundamentally flawed idea that has come to be because people like polytheism, and they like monotheism. The Catholic obsession with saints is similar.

If you teach at a Catholic school, you will need to understand a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: Catholics do not consider faith as the acceptance of nonsensical doctrines. The doctrine of "one nature and three people" was developed out of an attempt to rationalise the Trinity. Historically, it was not taking it as a faith, but developing faith through reason.

It is not polytheism. There is only one God in Catholic doctrine, and three people who share the property of being that one God. The analogy goes that there can be three clones, each with identical thoughts, but who perform different acts. They clones are different persons, but they share the same nature.