Originally posted by DoctorScribbles And what manner of reasoning would you have me follow instead? Or would you have me deny my human nature and not reason in any manner at all?
In this case the fact that a decision for the sex-offender to "remain in the RC clergy" was never taken, by nobody ...... and this just for starters.
What does this mean for the following remark in your introducing post:
DoctorS: " Particularly interesting is the fact that the Church has decided to allow this wolf to remain a member of the clergy."
What, after been educated about the facts, is so "particularly interesting", Doctor ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe I wonder if you guys really are interested in the pain and agony of the victims. I strongly doubt it. Your whole attitude points in a quite different direction. Guess what that direction is ?
Yes, this is somehow about Dr. Scribbles heartlessness in reporting another sexual abuse case. And you call marauder disingenuous.
Originally posted by ivanhoe In this case the fact that a decision for the sex-offender to "remain in the RC clergy" was never taken, by nobody ...... and this just for starters.
What does this mean for the following remark in your introducing post:
[b]DoctorS: " Particularly interesting is the fact that the Church has decided to allow this wolf to remain a member of the cler ...[text shortened]...
What, after been educated about the facts, is so "particularly interesting", Doctor ?[/b]
It's interesting that the Church refuses to modify its notion of ordination. (And its chosen notion of ordination does imply that it has decided to allow the wolf to remain an ordained member of the clergy.)
It seems to me that a reasonable modification would be that if a priest abuses the powers that his ordination entitles him to in a way that is grossly incongruent with the teachings of Christ and incompatible with the role of a church leader, then that priest's ordination shall be nullified.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles This is a fact?
This is a fact, and the journalistically appropriate claim in the AP article is not a fact but bait for the ignorant and gullible?
The claim is true - he remains a member of the clergy. The Church has decided that ordination cannot be revoked, and thus the church has decided not to revoke this wolf's ordination. The journal ...[text shortened]... he let them off easy if this omission was intentional.
You have a serious paranoia disorder.
DoctorS: "The claim is true - he remains a member of the clergy."
That was not his claim. He insinuated there has been a decison .... and you took the bait. You assumed, no you stated, there was a decison. You even found it "Particularly interesting"
Particularly interesting is the fact that the Church has decided to allow this wolf to remain a member of the clergy. Would anybody care to defend this decision?
DoctorS: "The journalist's only failing is that he didn't mention that the Church has decided to allow all child molesting priests to remain ordained members of the clergy.
The Church hasn't decided anything of the sort.
Please show me the evidence. You are clearly making up these allegations.
Originally posted by ivanhoe [b]DoctorS: "The claim is true - he remains a member of the clergy."
That was not his claim. He insinuated there has been a decison .... and you took the bait. You assumed, no you stated, there was a decison. [/b]
That was the claim. There was no insinuation in the article. Where was the bait? How could the reporter have worded the true claim differently to avoid insinuation?
"This molester, like all of the many molesters in the sex scandal, remains a member of the clergy."
Is that what you'd prefer?
I deduced the existence of the decision on my own - the reporter didn't lead me to. If my deduction is wrong, then I am wholly responsible for the error. The conclusion I reached is true. The Church has decided to keep the wolf in the clergy as a direct consequence of their decision to accept their current notion of ordination.
Originally posted by David C Yes, this is somehow about Dr. Scribbles heartlessness in reporting another sexual abuse case. And you call marauder disingenuous.
DoctorS: "The journalist's only failing is that he didn't mention that the Church has decided to allow all child molesting priests to remain ordained members of the clergy.
The Church hasn't decided anything of the sort.[/b]
So, is it possible for the Church to decide to remove some child molesting priests from the clergy? If this is inconsistent with the Church's doctrine, then the Church has, as a consequence of accepting that doctrine, made the decision in question.
You can't have it both ways. Either all those ordained are permanently ordained or they are not. If they are, then all child molesting priests are permanently ordained, as a consequence of the Church's decision to accept that notion of ordination. If they are not, then the Church has decided to keep this one.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It's interesting that the Church refuses to modify its notion of ordination. (And its chosen notion of ordination does imply that it has decided to allow the wolf to remain an ordained member of the clergy.)
It seems to me that a reasonable modification would be that if a priest abuses the powers that his ordination entitles him to in a way that ...[text shortened]... ncompatible with the role of a church leader, then that priest's ordination shall be nullified.
DoctorS: "It seems to me that a reasonable modification would be that if a priest abuses the powers that his ordination entitles him to in a way that is grossly incongruent with the teachings of Christ and incompatible with the role of a church leader, then that priest's ordination shall be nullified."
This would certainly be an interesting proposal. But as the way things are now it is impossible to make a decison to allow this or other sex offenders to remain a member of the RC clergy.
If you are so sure there has been a decision, in your opening post you speak of a "fact", please show me the evidence of the existence of this "fact" and the date this decision was made and by which Church organ.
If you are so sure there has been a decision, in your opening post you speak of a "fact", please show me the evidence of the existence of this "fact" and the date this decision was made and by which Church organ.
You claim that the nature of the Church's notion of ordination is such that it cannot be revoked. The date that notion was accepted as official doctrine is the date at which the decision was made to keep this child molester a member of the clergy.
Oh please marauder, I simply don't want a pissing match with you. I am not trying to change the subject. I am telling you why I do not wish to debate you.
A trick that can be added to your impressive repertoire of manipulating tricks and fallacies:
Accuse your opponent of performing the tricks you are performing yourself and accuse your opponent of performing the manipulating behaviour he is openly criticising in your behaviour, which you do not wish to address for obvious reasons, in order to confuse the issue at hand and in order to get your friends to believe and repeat these allegations in order to win some more points. The more you repeat a lie, the more it will become true ...... and don't you dare to accuse me of doing this, because everybody of good will can check my criticism by reading your posts in all the threads here on the RHP forums.
You started to play your insulting and manipulative repertoire, now accept the consequenses and bugger off.
Same thread, Ivanhoe:
I criticise your style of debate because it is not aimed at the truth, but on scoring points. Your whole style of debate is contaminated with efforts trying to manipulate. You very often try to divert to side-issues in a desperate effort to direct the argument away from a debate that is being lost. If you do not succeed in doing so, if you are not getting your way, you start acting like a petulant child. Insults and other personal attacks start flying over the forums. You often succeed in completely undermining the original debate.
Perhaps you did not use the word "disingenuous", but the message is clear. Shall I continue to dig? This was merely from the first page of a search on your username.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That [b]was the claim. There was no insinuation in the article. Where was the bait? How could the reporter have worded the true claim differently to avoid insinuation?
"This molester, like all of the many molesters in the sex scandal, remains a member of the clergy."
Is that what you'd prefer?
I deduced the existence of the dec ...[text shortened]... e clergy as a direct consequence of their decision to accept their current notion of ordination.[/b]
DoctorS: "The Church has decided to keep the wolf in the clergy as a direct consequence of their decision to accept their current notion of ordination."
You are subtly changing your claim, Dear Doctor ..... I agree it is a consequense of the Churche's rules and decrees of ordination, but the Church hasn't made any decision "to keep the wolf in the clergy". It is simply a delusion following from your legalistic way of reasoning. If you think it is not a delusion please show me the evidence when and how and by whom such a decision was made.
You started to play your insulting and manipulative repertoire, now accept the consequenses and bugger off.
Utilizing a manipulative repertoire is sufficient for exhibiting disingenuousness. If ivanhoe claims no1 uses such a repertoire, he is claiming that no1 is disingenuous.
It's quite similar to the fact that deciding all A are B is sufficient for having decided that this A is B. Deciding that all priests are permanently ordained is sufficient for having decided that this child molesting priest is permanently ordained.
Originally posted by ivanhoe If you think it is not a delusion please show me the evidence when and how and by whom such a decision was made.
What constitutes a decision to you? You didn't answer my question about the letter to the Pope. If he reads it, finds that my demand is contrary to doctrine, and throws it away, would you say that he has made a decision to keep the wolf in the clergy?
Former priest convicted of child molestation
27 Nov '05 06:062 edits
Back to Top