The Murphy Report

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Try rereading my first post.

Sure thing:

A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

Yes, quite irrelevant considering that I am denying that a mental reservation was actually being used. This is why I later wrote:

Anyway, I don't get the point of this argument. All I was saying is that the mental reservation is not a justification for the Cardinal concealing the abuse of funds.

It really is not my fault you cannot follow the argument.

The Irish bishops have also distanced themselves from Cardinal Connel, denying that mental reservation can be used as a justification for cover-ups:

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15305

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
They should also take responsibility.

With the Church it is especially egregious because of what it purports to be. The hypocrisy is pathetic.

This stems from a faulty ecclesiology on your part. Rome is not like the CEO over all the other churches. It is not responsible for the administration of other churches nor does it fund other churches. Each diocese has to be responsible for its own finances. If a diocese declares itself bankrupt, then its surrounding dioceses should support it or the diocese should sell off its property.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sure thing:

A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

Yes, quite irrelevant considering that I am denying that a mental reservation was actually being used. This is why I later wrote ...[text shortened]... the abuse of funds. [/quote]

It really is not my fault you cannot follow the argument.

How about quoting the entire post:

If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I understand that the speaker is a priest and that certain words must be reserved.

A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

Like I said earlier, my post was only addressing a specific point from your original post. It was NOT addressing your argument on the whole. You're really not being purposely obtuse?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How about quoting the entire post:

[quote][b]If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I addressing your argument on the whole. You're really not being purposely obtuse?[/b]

Again, it is quite irrelevant. I am not really interested in continuing with a discussion about the legitimacy of mental reservation; I only wished to accurately present what is meant by mental reservation and how it does not apply in this situation and why it is completely wrong to write:

What you seem to continue to fail to realize is that the entire concept of "mental reservation" is a way of trying to dress up a lie much as a child would. The only practical reason for having such a concept is to be able to deceive with a clear conscience which evidently the Catholic clergy is more than willing to do. The authors of the report are able to see this, the victims of sexual abuse are able to see this, it seems only you are unable to see it for what it is.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This stems from a faulty ecclesiology on your part. Rome is not like the CEO over all the other churches. It is not responsible for the administration of other churches nor does it fund other churches. Each diocese has to be responsible for its own finances. If a diocese declares itself bankrupt, then its surrounding dioceses should support it or the diocese should sell off its property.

You should really go back and reread all my posts. I'm well aware that the Church has structured itself so as to limit liability much as corporate conglomerates do. However, morality transcends such artificial boundaries. If the Church had moral fiber, it would take responsibility regardless. Corporate conglomerates structure themselves that way because they are not moral entities. Can you not see how the Church is similar? The hypocrisy is too much to bear.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, it is quite irrelevant. I am not really interested in continuing with a discussion about the legitimacy of mental reservation; I only wished to accurately present what is meant by mental reservation and how it does not apply in this situation and why it is completely wrong to write:

What you seem to continue to fail to realize is that the e ...[text shortened]... ual abuse are able to see this, it seems only you are unable to see it for what it is.

Well, maybe you really are that obtuse.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The Vatican now has the report anyway and the Pope has conducted a meeting with delegates of the Irish bishops conference. Possibly the papal nuncio should resign, if his explanation are proved false; however, I cannot see any reason for him to have conceal the report knowing that it would be published imminently and that the Pope would eventually have to respond to it. Perhaps his explanation has some validity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You should really go back and reread all my posts. I'm well aware that the Church has structured itself so as to limit liability much as corporate conglomerates do. However, morality transcends such artificial boundaries. If the Church had moral fiber, it would take responsibility regardless. Corporate conglomerates structure themselves that way because t ...[text shortened]... t moral entities. Can you not see how the Church is similar? The hypocrisy is too much to bear.

I do not think that the Church has structured itself to 'limit liability'; it is historically how the Church has always been structured. The Pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome and his primary pastoral responsibility is the population of Rome. While he does have legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding the clergy, he is not like a CEO. Administration of the church is shared collegially with the other bishops and so each bishops take total responsibility of his own church. Each bishop is responsible for the finances of his diocese and requirements of common law. So if a diocese declares bankruptcy, then it is the individual diocese should either sell property or ask for help from surrounding dioceses.

Rome is not like some kind of treasure trove for all the other dioceses. If the Pope were to sell off churches in Rome to help a diocese in America, Italians would rightly ask 'Why should our church have to suffer and why can't the Americans look after their churches?' Your criticism just shows a faulty ecclesiology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not think that the Church has structured itself to 'limit liability'; it is historically how the Church has always been structured. The Pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome and his primary pastoral responsibility is the population of Rome. While he does have legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding the cler the Americans look after their churches?' Your criticism just shows a faulty ecclesiology.

You seem to fail to understand the difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Maybe you're so heavily indoctrinated that you are blind. This is about moral responsibility or at least should be. Since the Pope has "legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding the clergy", he also has a moral obligation to protect the ALL the parishioners within ALL the dioceses. In this regard, the Office of the Pope has not only failed, but failed miserably. The fact that this failure is of such a large magnitude and covers so many dioceses demonstrates a failure of competent leadership at the highest levels. If you believe that so many different dioceses coming up with the same solution that repeatedly placed innocent children in harm's way of pedophiles is purely coincidental, you are exceedingly naive. It seems you fail to acknowledge how sick and twisted a culture must be for it to believe that moving pedophiles from parish to parish where they can claim more and more innocent children as victims is a viable alternative. This culture is the responsibility of the Office of the Pope. As such the Office of the Pope needs to accept the moral responsibility for its complete and utter failure. Even though it failed the thousands of victims in their greatest time of need, it is morally obligated to make restitution. For it to continue to turn its back on them is despicable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to fail to understand the difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Maybe you're so heavily indoctrinated that you are blind. This is about moral responsibility or at least should be. Since the Pope has "legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding the clergy", he also has a moral oblig ...[text shortened]... ly obligated to make restitution. For it to continue to turn its back on them is despicable.

If you believe that so many different dioceses coming up with the same solution that repeatedly placed innocent children in harm's way of pedophiles is purely coincidental, you are exceedingly naive.

I do not believe that it is coincidental; I just do not believe that the pope is responsible. I believe that there are other common denominators. The abuse scandals have mostly emerged from countries predominantly of Irish Catholic heritage, for example. From what I have read of the Murphy Report, it seems that the Irish prelates systematically ignored canon law or at least used part of canon law as a false cover. The pope can hardly be blamed when his legislation is abused like that.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If you believe that so many different dioceses coming up with the same solution that repeatedly placed innocent children in harm's way of pedophiles is purely coincidental, you are exceedingly naive.

I do not believe that it is coincidental; I just do not believe that the pope is responsible. I believe that there are other common denominators. The ...[text shortened]... n law as a false cover. The pope can hardly be blamed when his legislation is abused like that.[/b]

Evidently you either didn't understand or chose not to acknowledge the point of my post. Perhaps you are just plain too naive to understand the deeper issues.

Perhaps you missed this:
"This is about moral responsibility or at least should be. Since the Pope has "legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding the clergy", he also has a moral obligation to protect the ALL the parishioners within ALL the dioceses. In this regard, the Office of the Pope has not only failed, but failed miserably. The fact that this failure is of such a large magnitude and covers so many dioceses demonstrates a failure of competent leadership at the highest levels."

Or this:
"It seems you fail to acknowledge how sick and twisted a culture must be for it to believe that moving pedophiles from parish to parish where they can claim more and more innocent children as victims is a viable alternative. This culture is the responsibility of the Office of the Pope. As such the Office of the Pope needs to accept the moral responsibility for its complete and utter failure.

Or this:
"Even though it failed the thousands of victims in their greatest time of need, it is morally obligated to make restitution. For it to continue to turn its back on them is despicable."

It seems you are more than content for the Pope to continue to in effect say, "Not my problem. I'm not legally obligated to take responsibility. Talk to someone who cares." But then you seem more than content to revere an institution that has repeatedly shown a culture of depravity and corruption during its history. It is this culture that showed itself with the handling of pedophile priests. Instead of turning these depraved individuals over to the police, they turned them over to their next victims.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you either didn't understand or chose not to acknowledge the point of my post. Perhaps you are just plain too naive to understand the deeper issues.

Perhaps you missed this:
"This is about moral responsibility or at least should be. [b]Since the Pope has "legislative authority over the whole church liturgy, doctrine and rules regarding th depraved individuals over to the police, they turned them over to their next victims.[/b]

I am not going to argue the point further; I do not approve of sexual abuse and I condemn those who heinously concealed abuse and allowed so much suffering to occur. I pray that the Pope intervene; in time, I am sure he will. That said, the Church is not Rome, nor is it the deacons, priests and bishops who administer to the Church. The victims and their parents parents and victims who reported the abuse were just as part of the Church and they are a sign that the Holy Spirit is still at work even if leaders have failed miserably.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not going to argue the point further; I do not approve of sexual abuse and I condemn those who heinously concealed abuse and allowed so much suffering to occur. I pray that the Pope intervene; in time, I am sure he will. That said, the Church is not Rome, nor is it the deacons, priests and bishops who administer to the Church. The victims and their par ...[text shortened]... and they are a sign that the Holy Spirit is still at work even if leaders have failed miserably.

Have you watched the documentary "Deliver Us from Evil"? Or at least read the link to the review I posted earlier?

From the review:
"Two grown victims attempt at one point to go to the Vatican to ask for an audience, but they are turned away. That rejection, once again, by an institution where they so desperately need inclusion, is a sad statement about institutional versus human compassion."

If the Pope were concerned about helping to end the suffering, he would have granted them an audience. The fact that they were turned away speaks volumes. The victims and their families were not only victimized by pedophile priests, but by an institution that betrayed them and continues to betray them. Many of them suffer from a deep crisis of faith, both in the Church and of God. The Church, instead of embracing the victims and their families to help them through this crisis, have a now long history of placing the well-being of the Church above the well-being of those that they wronged and continue to wrong. You can say, "I pray that the Pope intervene; in time, I am sure he will", but the reality is that he and the institution he heads, have time and again avoided making willing restitution. Until they do, it is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not at work in the leaders of the Church.

You should really watch the documentary. Perhaps it will help you to better empathize with the plight of the victims and their families.