Originally posted by lucifershammer
So what?

Well, for instance, one could then teach children that members of the clergy ought to be respected and trusted. As is, I'd think that you would teach children that only some clergy - namely those that aren't convicted molesters - ought to be respected and trusted. I'm sure we could both imagine other benefits to church members and clergy alike.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Under what epistemic criteria? Are you saying that all people who don't believe accordingly are objectively wrong?

Under what epistemic criteria?

Essentially - Revelation and Apostolic Tradition.

Are you saying that all people who don't believe accordingly are objectively wrong?

Naturally.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


[b]Are you saying that all people who don't believe accordingly are objectively wrong?

Naturally.[/b]

So, all Jews (at least those who don't accept the Catholic notion of ordination) are objectively wrong?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Under what epistemic criteria?

Essentially - Revelation and Apostolic Tradition.[/b]

Then you have just pushed the decision back one step. The church has decided to use those criteria as its standard of truth, just like I imposed the murdering policy upon myself. But neither absolves us or excuses our actions, or allows us to claim that we were not permitted to act otherwise. That's just being irresponsible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, for instance, one could then teach children that members of the clergy ought to be respected and trusted. As is, I'd think that you would teach children that only some clergy - namely those that aren't convicted molesters - ought to be respected and trusted. I'm sure we could both imagine other benefits to church members and clergy alike.

Well, for instance, one could then teach children that members of the clergy ought to be respected and trusted.

But the Church already teaches that nothing in the sacraments that leave an indelible mark (viz. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders) completely prevents the person receiving the sacrament from sinning. So, it would be impossible for the Church to teach children that all clergymen should receive unqualified and total respect and trust.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, all Jews (at least those who don't accept the Catholic notion of ordination) are objectively wrong?

According to the Church - yes.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then you have just pushed the decision back one step. The church has decided to use those criteria as its standard of truth, just like I imposed the murdering policy upon myself. But neither absolves us or excuses our actions, or allows us to claim that we were not permitted to act otherwise. That's just being irresponsible.

The church has decided to use those criteria as its standard of truth

Are you saying that objective standards of truth do not exist? That it is simply a matter of choice whether something is true or not?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Under what epistemic criteria?

Essentially - Revelation and Apostolic Tradition.

Are you saying that all people who don't believe accordingly are objectively wrong?

Naturally.[/b]

About which we disagree emphatically—I think you’re objectively wrong about your epistemic status for making such an objective claim! 🙂

With that said—and granting the church’s metaphysical view of ordination—what are the strongest statements and actions that the church can make on this issue, not just with regard to past events, but with regard to future safety of children (e.g., how to know whom they can trust) and removing the cloud that hangs over those clergy that, as Dr. S. put it, “ought to be respected and trusted.”

Originally posted by lucifershammer
According to the Church - yes.

If you have to throw in an "according to," then you can't claim that the truth in question is an objective one.

According to the reality of the universe, are those Jews objectively wrong?
If not, then your entire position falls apart, for reality is not compeling the Catholic Church to accept its current notion of ordination. That is, it has just decided to accept it as true by virtue of its choice of epistemic criteria.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Are you saying that objective standards of truth do not exist?

Are you saying that there is only one, and that it happens to be the one the Catholic Church adheres to?

Originally posted by vistesd
About which we disagree emphatically—I think you’re objectively wrong about your epistemic status for making such an objective claim! 🙂

With that said—and granting the church’s metaphysical view of ordination—what are the strongest statements and actions that the church can make on this issue, not just with regard to past events, but with regard to futu ...[text shortened]... cloud that hangs over those clergy that, as Dr. S. put it, “ought to be respected and trusted.”

With that said—and granting the church’s metaphysical view of ordination—what are the strongest statements and actions that the church can make on this issue, not just with regard to past events, but with regard to future safety of children (e.g., how to know whom they can trust) and removing the cloud that hangs over those clergy that, as Dr. S. put it, “ought to be respected and trusted.”

The strongest statement would be to ask parents to exercise common sense. Inform and warn children about inappropriate contact and encourage them to be open about incidents.

The strongest action would be to nip the problem at the bud - in the seminaries.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If you have to throw in an "according to," then you can't claim that the truth in question is an objective one.

According to the reality of the universe, are those Jews objectively wrong?
If not, then your entire position falls apart, for reality is not compeling the Catholic Church to accept its current notion of ordination. That is, it has just decided to accept it as true by virtue of its choice of epistemic criteria.

If you have to throw in an "according to," then you can't claim that the truth in question is an objective one.

Why not?

According to LH and the RCC, ordination is irreversible. According to Scribs, it is. Objectively - only one of these positions is true. However, simply putting "according to" does not render the true position objectively untrue. It simply means there exists a competing position (true or not).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]With that said—and granting the church’s metaphysical view of ordination—what are the strongest statements and actions that the church can make on this issue, not just with regard to past events, but with regard to future safety of children (e.g., how to know whom they can trust) and removing the cloud that hangs over those clergy that, as Dr. S. p ...[text shortened]... cidents.

The strongest action would be to nip the problem at the bud - in the seminaries.[/b]

Wouldn't a stronger action be the institution of a policy that forbids priests to be alone with children? Children and parents would then be aware of the policy, and would immediately know that something is wrong if the priest starts asking for alone time. If it is necessary for a priest to have alone time with children in order to fulfill his role, the policy could be modified to require that this happen in a windowed room where parents or other church staff can keep an eye on things. Defining the role of the preist to be such that it requires secret alone time with children is just asking for trouble.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]If you have to throw in an "according to," then you can't claim that the truth in question is an objective one.

Why not?

According to LH and the RCC, ordination is irreversible. According to Scribs, it is. Objectively - only one of these positions is true. However, simply putting "according to" does not render the true position objectively untrue. It simply means there exists a competing position (true or not).[/b]

"According to" weakens the claim. Either drop it, or admit that you can only make the weaker claim. If you can make the stronger claim, just say
"Jews are objectively wrong."

What you did was a cop out, presumably because you realized how absurd you would sound saying that.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you saying that there is only one, and that it happens to be the one the Catholic Church adheres to?

Not sure what you mean by multiple standards of objective truth. Could you elaborate?

In any case, if objective truth exists, then all standards of that truth will be coherent (i.e. no contradictions between them). The Church adheres to all of them.