|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But you're right - I do think that if you're indifferent to the misery that your decisions cause then that's an indication that you've lost touch with God.
There are many unspoken assumptions behind this. For one, you only ever consider wordly misery. Or to be more precise, you cannot imagine any longer that what causes worldly misery may cause eternal bliss, and what causes worldly bliss may cause eternal misery. And behind that stands an interpretation of human beings as essentially good and able, with all problems being difficulties and mistakes that can be fixed by good will, organisation and education. If God wasn't part of that solution, then he would be part of the problem. But this is more Jean-Jacques Rousseau than Jesus Christ...
Subtle is the devil, but only in his means not in his message. Now as then, we are told that God ought not to deny us a good that we want. The difference is that we now know to reject a call to directly violate the law God has given. So the first step is instead to say that there is no precept, but just an ideal. There be serpents.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Faced with a genuinely reforming Pope, a similar situation occurs on the opposite wing of the political spectrum. Those who were big on tradition and authority have to choose between tradition and authority. Choose well...
The pope has no authority whatsoever apart from tradition. He is the vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself. Even his role as the supreme governor of the Church is grounded solely in tradition, for if he is not the successor of the St Peter which tradition tells us about, and if the succession does not mean what tradition claims it to mean, then he is just an old man in funny clothes.
Of course, this does not exclude "reform" in a more limited sense, or indeed an outright break with non-essential tradition. For example, I would highly appreciate if Pope Francis followed the arguably most modernist move that the papacy has ever seen. Please, dear Pope Francis, follow the bold step of your thoroughly modernist and reforming predecessor in the office, and retire at the age of 80. This makes perfect sense, after all the mandatory retirement age for priests is 70 and for (arch)bishops 75, so popes really should go at 80. And if you want to be cutting-edge modern, then you could always seek early retirement at 78.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm sorry, this is pretty opaque for me. I don't really know now what you mean by continuous struggle. Do you mean that this is how grace arrives?
Just that you have to know yourself to be lost to think that you need to be found. You have to know you need a saviour to accept one.
Yes, it's the word 'continuous' that's making me boggle. In my dialect, that means 'uninterrupted'. So if I am having a nice meal with friends, I should be thinking about my need for a saviour? This is unreal.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's the word 'continuous' that's making me boggle. In my dialect, that means 'uninterrupted'. So if I am having a nice meal with friends, I should be thinking about my need for a saviour? This is unreal.
Think of it more like of trying to lose weight. Obviously, there are times when that issue will be really prominent in your mind. For example, when you are about to go on a five mile run, or when you are about to stuff your face with cheese cake and cream. There are other times when you will not be thinking about it at all, for example when you are sitting in your office and working. However, in the evening you may then well reflect back on the day in the office, and note that as far as losing weight goes, sitting still in a chair is not helping much. Indeed, you may decide that because of your office work, you really need to go to the gym in the evening. Whereas if you were working in a job that requires hard physical labour, you would not judge this part of your day in the same way.
The struggle of religious life can be "continuous" in that sense. So nothing stops you from enjoying your nice meal with friends. But maybe during the meal you catch yourself badmouthing your boss to entertain your friends. And then you might worry about that a little. Or perhaps reflecting on the meal afterwards, you notice that one of your friends was unusually quiet. Why did you not ask about whether he is OK? There's a bit of a worry for you. Most of the time such issues are unlikely to affect your salvation chances much - and that is appropriate, for most of the time our lives are not terribly decisive but more steadily accumulative. But perhaps next Sunday you hear the preacher ask whether you are keeping your faith to yourself, rather than spreading it to others? And you suddenly realise that in all those many years of nice meals with the same friends you never ever even mentioned that you have faith of any kind. And that might be a bit more of a worry. And in all of this you might find good reasons to tell yourself to do better, next time. And when you start noticing things like this, you may well find that when next time rolls around you remain just the same, in spite of your sincere intentions. And if this goes on for a while, if you start to see a clear and relatively constant disparity between what you think you should be doing, and what you are in fact doing, then you will start to get this feeling of a constant struggle, of an uphill battle.
Year later, you may still find yourself overweight. Or still smoking. Or still not praying regularly. The underlying psychology is not particularly limited to religion. What religion does is to provide a specific framework of expectations that you would not have without it, or at least would not have in the same way without it. And since this particular framework invariably involves transcendent perfection, in a sense this becomes never ending. You may achieve this or that, but then that just opens up the possibility to achieve something else. There are a lot of fine lines to be walked there. If it all goes well, then you are sent on a path of continuous refinement which increasingly becomes a joy in itself rather than a bother. If it doesn't go so well, then not so much...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IngoB
Yes, that's fine. I'm just being pedantic about continual/continuous. My spiritual self-reflection is continual, but I would become insane if it were continuous.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IngoB
Yes, that's fine. I'm just being pedantic about continual/continuous. My spiritual self-reflection is continual, but I would become insane if it were continuous.
So when you used the words "histrionic" and "melodramatic" you were just trying to make the point that someone had misused a word?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm sorry, I was using them as metonym for their false dichotomy. That is an explanation, not an excuse.
My apologies.
[ 18. November 2014, 22:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IngoB
Yes, that's fine. I'm just being pedantic about continual/continuous. My spiritual self-reflection is continual, but I would become insane if it were continuous.
So when you used the words "histrionic" and "melodramatic" you were just trying to make the point that someone had misused a word?
Eh? I don't think you have actually read my posts. Here is my comment with 'histrionic':
Well, there seems to be this histrionic view of life on the part of some Christians - that it's like the 'long defeat' described by Tolkien.
How is this to do with a misuse of a word?
I used 'melodramatic' about 'continuous struggle', but made this point:
it's the word 'continuous' that's making me boggle. In my dialect, that means 'uninterrupted'.
So again, I was trying to find out how people were using 'continuous', and then IngoB's post clarified it for me. An uninterrupted struggle sounds insane to me, but that's not what was meant.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
if you're indifferent to the misery that your decisions cause then that's an indication that you've lost touch with God.
behind that stands an interpretation of human beings as essentially good and able, with all problems being difficulties and mistakes that can be fixed by good will, organisation and education.
You're guessing at what might lie behind my stated point of view. Wrongly - unless you can demonstrate that considering humans to be essentially good follows logically from what I've said.
Wrong deeds don't have to involve stage-villain cackling maniacal laughter and hatred. Indifference to the pain and misery you cause others by your actions is enough. Nothing personal, you just got in the way of how I think the world should be...
quote:
we now know to reject a call to directly violate the law God has given. So the first step is instead to say that there is no precept, but just an ideal. There be serpents.
And this seems to replace God the loving Father whose precepts of caring for each other are willed for our good, with God the Cosmic Tyrant who wills the world as he arbitrarily wants it on pain of eternal suffering for the unco-operative.
As for the argument that bliss in the next life might be earned by suffering in this. It's not that there are no circumstances in which that might be true. It's that such an argument can be (and perhaps has been) used to justify any evil.
I can steal, or murder, or slander with a clear conscience if I believe that
a) the victim is an "essentially bad" person who deserved it for disregarding the precepts of my religion, or
b) whatever suffering I cause him in this life will doubtless bring him an eternity of bliss in the next, so if you take the long view I'm doing him a big favour.
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Complacency about oneself is as wrong as constant introverted self-examination. I think the Christian answer to this is to be found in daily rhythms, such as daily offices. They do not have to be long but they provide opportunities for stopping, reflecting, hearing from God.
Busyness can turn us into human doings rather than human beings. We need an antidote for that as much as we need an antidote for self-absorption. So we need to find ways of persevering which provide such antidotes. I think Richard Foster coined the phrase 'Celebration of Discipline' to describe the right approach to such antidotes. Of course in our time you can hardly use the word discipline without others inferring some kind of morbid self flagellation. To coin IngoB's phrase, that's just another example of 'serpent subtlety' at work. The notions that self control is somehow damaging, or even if it isn't we couldn't possibly need regular help in achieving some necessary measure of it.
One of those issues where a low/high view of human nature comes in very handy. 'Who, me? You can't be serious?' . Well, yes I can.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
if you're indifferent to the misery that your decisions cause then that's an indication that you've lost touch with God.
behind that stands an interpretation of human beings as essentially good and able, with all problems being difficulties and mistakes that can be fixed by good will, organisation and education.
You're guessing at what might lie behind my stated point of view. Wrongly - unless you can demonstrate that considering humans to be essentially good follows logically from what I've said.
Which puts QED to the notion that IngoB can't yet properly handle Genesis 1:26.
[code]
[ 23. November 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Which puts QED to the notion that IngoB can't yet properly handle Genesis 1:26.
I assert that Russ is following a typical romantic-modernist conception of man. In response, he attempts a rhetorical diversion by pretending that my talk of underlying principles mean that I am viewing the world as populated by comic book heroes and villains. And now you randomly claim that this scores some essential point against my interpretation of man as the image and likeness of God? Very odd. I assume this is yet another attempt at rhetorical diversion. Presumably you are well aware that with your claim that internal grace merely activates natural human capacity you are still sailing darn close to Pelagian winds.
Incidentally, there never has existed a human in this world to whom we could attribute pure (in the sense of "unmodified") human nature. Adam and Eve iwere given preternatural gifts (integrity, immortality and infused knowledge) and original justice in sanctifying grace. They ended with a fallen human nature due to original sin. Human nature was restored in Christ, but not in the sense of either returning to pure or original nature. If there is such a thing as a human being of pure human nature, then perhaps it is to be found in a Limbo filled with unbaptised infants raised by God from death into natural happiness (if there is such a place - but then it is not of this world).
We are the image and likeness of God in the flesh because we are the only rational animals (best we know). Human nature in this essential sense is indeed good and remains functional. Hence technically we can still be united to God, we can be Divinised because we are sufficiently God-like in understanding. But that's quite a different consideration of human nature than the one that concerns the fall and redemption of the human race. If a silly analogy be permitted, one is saying that this laptop here has the necessary Ethernet port to connect to the mainframe, the other is discussing whether the laptop is "clean" enough to be allowed to connect, or whether it is compromised by viruses, worms and trojans.
[ 23. November 2014, 22:09: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Thank you, IngoB.
I'll be back in a week when I have proper keyboard and workable internet connection.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I assert that Russ is following a typical romantic-modernist conception of man. In response, he attempts a rhetorical diversion by pretending that my talk of underlying principles mean that I am viewing the world as populated by comic book heroes and villains.
No objection here to being called either romantic or modernist. But I'm still not clear where I set out any metaphysical conception of man; I thought at this point I was making a very simple argument based on no more than "golden rule" ethics.
Not sure if you're really misunderstanding the comic villain point or just pretending to do so for rhetorical effect.
But "underlying principles" ?? Didn't know you had any. Your chosen role here seems to be that of the party hack who will trot out any mouldy old argument he can find in support of the party line. You give the impression that there is no principle that you would not happily trash rather than admit it has any validity as a basis on which to criticise the Catholic Church.
I think that's only a role, that you're better than your apparent absence of principle would suggest. But I could be wrong.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to despise Protestants because of the idea that changes in thinking arise first in the secular culture, spread to the Christian laity, and are finally acknowledged by Protestant church leaders. Without saying what alternative would cause you to respect them more. Being in the vanguard of social change and new thinking ? Or being a little island of 16th-century philosophy and psychology, left behind by the modern world ?
Unfortunately, I haven't the opportunity to give this post the time it deserves, but I did want to make clear that I don't despise Protestants. (And I hope it's not the case that your mistaking my disagreement with the modern Protestant consensus on divorce for despising Protestants means that you despise Catholics.)
To give an over-brief answer to your question, prima facie I'd expect that any correct set of moral positions would probably agree with the prevailing morality of any given time and place on some issues and disagree with it on other issues. (That doesn't mean, of course, that any set of moral positions that only partly agrees with current secular morality is the correct set of moral positions.) I'd be especially suspicious of any purported moral authority whose positions seem to hew consistently to the prevailing morality of its time and place. (Though again, it's obviously within the realm of possibility that such a moral authority has finally got it right in this part of the 21st century and this part of the world.)
quote:
But "underlying principles" ?? Didn't know you had any. Your chosen role here seems to be that of the party hack who will trot out any mouldy old argument he can find in support of the party line. You give the impression that there is no principle that you would not happily trash rather than admit it has any validity as a basis on which to criticise the Catholic Church.
The fact that the positions IngoB is defending here – or at least something closer to them than the currently popular Protestant positions – were defended within living memory by a number of Protestants who had no particular commitment to defending Catholic doctrine qua Catholic doctrine suggests that there are some generally-acceptable (though obviously not generally-accepted) principles behind those positions, even if you happen to disagree with them.
[ 30. November 2014, 19:26: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, I said that I don't get why people are staying, which is not exactly the same as saying that they should be leaving. Second, it's more than just about wilfully ignoring Church doctrine.
By this reckoning, why would the likes of Cristina Odone stay? She gives a clue when she writes:
quote:
What that survey revealed was no surprise to any of us Catholics: we are concerned with everyday issues, not theological niceties. We feel there is a disconnect between what we practise in terms of birth control, divorce, and marriage, and what the Church has been teaching for hundreds of years.
The way "us Catholics" rolls off her keyboard tells us that she's so Catholic to the core that she's like a stick of rock with "Catholic" running through it. It simply wouldn't occur to a former editor of the Catholic Herald that there's any possibility of being anything else. But she sees what people sometimes have to live with:
quote:
Because, let's face it: whether it is a woman who's sought divorce from her alcoholic husband, only to discover her remarriage bans her from Communion; or a mother of nine in a favela who risks her mental and physical health by having any more — the compassionate teacher is not always a Catholic one.
She also sees other problems;
quote:
The recent scandal surrounding Bishop Kieran Conroy highlights the difficulties with priestly celibacy; women priests is a rumbling issue, which has drawn life from Anglican acceptance; and child sex abuse still may throw up some horrific historic scandals.
If I were ever to meet Ms Odone, I doubt if we would disagree about anything, except that she is totally secure in her Catholic identity, enough to openly express her view that the Church needs to change, wheras I, as a fairly recent convert coming from a Protestant background, believe that I'm too much at odds with the official position to remain in good integrity. But I suspect that there are millions of Ms Odones out there who have no intention of either leaving the Church, nor of living up to its arduous requirements.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
PaulTH*, Cristina Odone says in the article you link to
quote:
We feel there is a disconnect between what we practise in terms of birth control, divorce, and marriage, and what the Church has been teaching for hundreds of years.
Correct. This however makes your modern practice wrong, not as you apparently believe the traditional teachings of the Church. She goes on to say:
quote:
The results of the survey shook the curia, the Vatican clergy and administrators, to the core: they had assumed there was a little gap between flock and shepherds — but what they found was that there was a gulf.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Heck, it is so outlandish that I assume that she is lying through her teeth there for rhetorical effect. I doubt that any active RC clergy in the West would be surprised in the slightest by the widespread ignorance about, and more importantly wilful ignoring of, RC doctrine in matters of intimate relationships. Certainly anything I've ever heard from RC priests and bishops, whether in chatting or preaching, clearly assumed that a large part of the flock would be struggling with these teachings. (And this is not a new thing, the Church Fathers presumably preached ferociously about these matters because they found their flock back then wavering.)
Cristina Odone has married an Anglican man, father of her child - a divorced Anglican whose first wife is alive, and who brought his children from that marriage with him (now her step-children). I think she might be just a little bit biased on these matters due to personal circumstances.
As far as her being the Editor of the Catholic Herald till 1996 goes, I would be mildly curious whether that indicates that this now fairly conservative publication was more liberal back then. Or whether it indicates that she was more conservative back then, and has since turned liberal.
[ 01. December 2014, 01:20: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I've seen Cristina Odone many times on tv chats, but I've no idea if she's in good standing with the Church. Perhaps her husband regularised his situation as a divorcee. But in any event, she doesn't seem to feel she has any compelling reason to leave, though she's at odds with several core teachings. But I see Ingo's point. If the Catholic Church were to change as much as Cristina seems to favour, it might as well be Anglican. Instead of the errant child running home to its parent, the parent would need to make all the running.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the parent would need to make all the running.
Yes, how dreadful and undignified. Quite right that the Church should not demean itself in this way.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I don't quite know what point dyfrig is making here. God as a parent will always run to us whenever we show any sign of contrition. But the Catholic Church, and even more so the Orthodox, never give an inch to those pesky schismatics!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
what alternative would cause you to respect them more. Being in the vanguard of social change and new thinking ? Or being a little island of 16th-century philosophy and psychology, left behind by the modern world ?
I'd be especially suspicious of any purported moral authority whose positions seem to hew consistently to the prevailing morality of its time and place.
(Though again, it's obviously within the realm of possibility that such a moral authority has finally got it right in this part of the 21st century and this part of the world.)
.
I agree you'd be right to be suspicious of any authority that does no more than rubber-stamp thinking that takes place elsewhere.
But it's not a question of being once-for-all finally right. It's a question about the process of where new thinking takes place and how a church responds to it. You can be ultra-conservative and idolise tradition and declare that new thinking is always wrong. You can set out to be an organisation that is constantly innovating so as to be ahead of everybody else. Or you can engage with the new thinking that happens outside the citadel and seek to combine what's good in the new and what's good in the old.
My impression is that the movement against slavery was led by lay Christians and junior clergy rather than church leaders. That thinking on the morality of caring for the environment is led by the laity rather than church leaders. That the impetus to put behind us a history of discrimination against women and against ethnic minorities comes from the laity rather than church leaders. That the laity recognised that child abuse is a serious crime before the bishops did. Moral progress doesn't happen from the centre when the centre see themselves as the guardians of tradition.
You may think it undignified for church leaders to adopt moral ideas only after the consensus of the laity is in, to follow the crowd. But the alternatives are getting on board sooner with what's right with new thinking (and rejecting what's not - forming a new synthesis if you like, Not saying there isn't also a fair amount of crap out there). Or setting the church's face against any change ever.
Glad to hear it's only disdain rather than despite that you feel for the inconstancy of Protestant church leaders. But it's still a misplaced feeling.
Best wishes,
Russ
PS: IngoB will probably be along shortly to tell me that the idea of synthesis is part of Godless Marxism and I've finally shown my true colours... But you take truth where you can find it; true ideas are not contaminated by association. And frankly, most of those who think the Catholic church has got it wrong are not satanists seeking to destroy it. They are people who've latched onto some element of truth or rightness that's missing from the traditional teaching. And the constructive way to deal with that is to incorporate the stray fragment with what's rightest and best in the tradition. Not to push it outside the walls and build the defences higher.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Wycliffe and Luther weren't out to destroy the RC Church either, nor Wesley the Anglican, and look what it got them: absolute refusal to admit any problem whatsoever, a pushback against accepting any form of truth within what was being offered, and a hierarchical determination to attack and kill those who spoke out.
The only difference now is that, at least in Christianity, there determination to kill people has been replaced by encouraging others to kill GLBTs and heretics, especially the black ones (scroll to the Flood Church)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's no evidence I'm aware of that the church burners are Christians. On the face of it, I'd expect the opposite.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
PS: IngoB will probably be along shortly to tell me that the idea of synthesis is part of Godless Marxism and I've finally shown my true colours... But you take truth where you can find it; true ideas are not contaminated by association.
You know, from my perspective you are toeing you own party line with the precision of a prima ballerina. The difference between us is then simply that I admit where I hang my hat, whereas you have to pretend that your parroting is ad-libbing.
The triad thesis - antithesis - synthesis is mostly Fichte, not Marx, and I have employed it on occasion. For that matter, as Karl Adam explains in what perhaps still is the best book about the Spirit of Catholicism, Catholicism has been synthesising a wide variety of cultural inputs. A true Marxian insight which I have used fairly regularly in arguments is that the base dominates the superstructure. (Ironically, this immediately explains why the historical attempts to impose Socialism and Communism in the East failed.)
Anyway, I try to be a faithful son of the Church. If you believe that this has to mean that I have switched off my brain, then that's pretty stupid of you. If you believe that I arrived at this position by stopping to think, then you have not been listening to me but to the prejudices in your head. And while being a faithful Catholic means being "socially conservative" on a number of issues, I'm not otherwise a political conservative. As far as the economy goes, for example, I'm clearly "centre-left" for most practical purposes, but with quite some sympathy for radical approaches that would keep the rich from getting richer. And as a German my expectations on social welfare and the health system are way more Scandinavian than American.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wycliffe and Luther weren't out to destroy the RC Church either, nor Wesley the Anglican, and look what it got them: absolute refusal to admit any problem whatsoever, a pushback against accepting any form of truth within what was being offered, and a hierarchical determination to attack and kill those who spoke out.
Clearly you have never heard of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. It is an interesting period of history, you should look into it.
[ 02. December 2014, 13:01: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
from my perspective you are toeing you own party line with the precision of a prima ballerina. The difference between us is then simply that I admit where I hang my hat, whereas you have to pretend that your parroting is ad-libbing.
I'm really not a party animal. Which party exactly are you suggesting that I'm an unacknowledged member of, and who among that body lays down what party line ?
And please, not parroting. I at least try to put the answers in my own words.
If what you're trying to say is that neither of us is a great original thinker and we both get our ideas from reading and listening to other people rather than inventing things entirely for ourselves, then yes that much is true.
I think you have it wrong - that the challenge to your party, your system of thought, is a non-party, an unsystem.
I think you said once something to the effect that "it's not about belonging to the Church because you agree with the particular doctrines - it's about agreeing with the particular doctrines because you belong to the Church". So you do know the difference between following a party line and thinking for oneself...
quote:
I try to be a faithful son of the Church. If you believe that this has to mean that I have switched off my brain, then that's pretty stupid of you. If you believe that I arrived at this position by stopping to think, then you have not been listening to me but to the prejudices in your head. And while being a faithful Catholic means being "socially conservative" on a number of issues, I'm not otherwise a political conservative. As far as the economy goes, for example, I'm clearly "centre-left" for most practical purposes, but with quite some sympathy for radical approaches that would keep the rich from getting richer. And as a German my expectations on social welfare and the health system are way more Scandinavian than American.
.
I don't think you're a free-marketeer, or an old fogey. My impression is that what floats your boat is authority, not tradition. If you looked to the State rather than the Church you'd be a fascist.
And clearly you haven't switched off your brain.
As an Englishman abroad, I see that English culture has both Celtic and Teutonic elements. One of the differences is that the Irish are a little too ready to break rules for the sake of people, and the Germans are a little too ready to break people for the sake of rules...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
And now you call me the Church-equivalent of a fascist. Because you claim I seek authority rather than tradition. Posted on the very same thread where I have declared that if the current Bishop of Rome fucks with the Church teaching on marriage too much I will leave the RCC, because without tradition the RCC is nothing.
Yeah.
How about you take a bit of a break from this, or perhaps have a beer?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
OK. Those exchanges are moving into the Commandment 3/4 territory. I recommend you both step away from that.
Either of you has the options of getting Hellish in Hell, of course. Though I don't believe either of you much likes that option.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, perish the thought that the Holy Spirit is trying to lead the RCC in to all truth.
The arc is long indeed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That the impetus to put behind us a history of discrimination against women and against ethnic minorities comes from the laity rather than church leaders.
The idea that history of the Church has been the constant story of the laity leading the hierarchy into greater Goodness and Truth is pretty simplistic. To note just one counterexample, when Archbishop Rummel desegregated the New Orleans parochial schools, he faced a substantial amount of opposition from his flock.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
when Archbishop Rummel desegregated the New Orleans parochial schools, he faced a substantial amount of opposition from his flock.
Good for him.
Do you believe that the main influence for his action came from the Vatican ? Or from listening to contemporary lay voices - progressive and conservative - and forming a judgment as to where the right course of action lay in this particular case ?
You're quite right to remind us that some lay people can be more conservative than the hierarchy.
I guess I don't count archbishops as church leaders - they're middle management. With the difficult job of trying to reconcile the situation as the front-life staff report it with the directives from HQ.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(ETA The dreaded page turn strikes again)
Isn't conviction of sin the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit? I never limit the way that Person may choose to work. I seem to recall a quote (C S Lewis?) about bottling moonbeams when it comes to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Scripture is amusing about leadership; little children may lead and a donkey may speak for God. Prophets may challenge the authority of Kings. Jesus' sheep hear his voice. All of us are subject to governing authorities. And should submit to elders. Go figure an overarching stereotype out of that lot - and plenty of others.
[ 07. December 2014, 11:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I guess I don't count archbishops as church leaders - they're middle management. With the difficult job of trying to reconcile the situation as the front-life staff report it with the directives from HQ. ...
That's very much an RC perspective. I don't think many other ecclesial communities work like that.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you believe that the main influence for his action came from the Vatican ? Or from listening to contemporary lay voices - progressive and conservative - and forming a judgment as to where the right course of action lay in this particular case ?
...
I guess I don't count archbishops as church leaders - they're middle management. With the difficult job of trying to reconcile the situation as the front-life staff report it with the directives from HQ.
I think people unfamiliar with Church governance tend to underestimate the amount of power bishops have vis-à-vis Rome. But they have quite a lot, for both theological reasons (the "supreme power in the universal Church" is exercised by the college of bishops) and practical ones (the Roman Curia is far too small compared to the Church as a whole to do much micromanaging, the few well-publicized counterexamples notwithstanding [1]).
In this particular case, though, the Vatican did weigh in: quote:
Other segregationist Catholics formed the Association of Catholic Laymen of New Orleans which "asked the Pope (Pius XII) to stop Rummel from taking further steps to integrate white and Negro Catholics and to decree that racial segregation is not 'morally wrong and sinful'" ("Morals" 36). The Vatican's response was to remind all that "the Pope had condemned racism as a major evil, asserting 'that those who enter the Church... have rights as children in the House of the Lord'" (McCulla 68).
[1] "The Catholic Church is about the most decentralized institution in the world," said the Rev. Thomas Williams, dean of theology at Regina Apostolarum Pontifical University in Rome. "There are 1.1 billion Catholics and 2,600 employees at the Vatican. The proportion would be like to run the federal government of the United States with 500 people. You couldn't do it."
[ 07. December 2014, 23:45: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You're quite right to remind us that some lay people can be more conservative than the hierarchy.
I should also point out that this doesn't just apply to situations where the hierarchy is more "liberal" than the laity. (Even if it's possible to give terms like that meanings that are consistent across history.) For example, plenty of progressive intellectuals in America and Europe in the early 20th century supported forms of eugenics (including a lot of liberal Protestants), but the RCC hierarchy adamantly opposed it.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
... For example, plenty of progressive intellectuals in America and Europe in the early 20th century supported forms of eugenics. ...
It is quite a good idea to remind oneself of this when people are saying either you, or the church as a whole, should unthinkingly align with where society seems to be going or where the state or the chattering classes are trying to take it.
Eugenics were very respectable until May 1945. Many states were routinely sterilising some of their less fortunate citizens without their consent until long after that.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Enoch quote:
Many states were routinely sterilising some of their less fortunate citizens without their consent until long after that.
But does that necessarily equal eugenics? Always?
For example, what about a female with an IQ so low (c that of a 3 year old child) she can't cope with her own periods, doesn't understand how she becomes pregnant, can't cope with the process of delivery, yet is capable of bearing a child?
So far she's had 2 children - fathered by ??? - and is still only 20 years of age. She has a social worker who speaks brightly of her 'rights' but doesn't have to cope with her distress and bewilderment when pregnancy causes discomfort and pain. When a health worker mentioned the possibility of sterilisation the social worker went straight to 'you-are-a-nazi' mode which isn't either helpful or hopeful.
What would YOU do?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Contraceptive implant or coil, subject to proper capacity assessment and best interest meeting. But most importantly, if she genuninely has the understanding of a three year old, I be concerned to stop people raping her - as that seems to have been happening repeatedly.
[ 09. December 2014, 07:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
And how do you explain menstruation and personal hygiene to one with the mind of a 3 year old?
Some time ago, I wrote of the daughter of friends. S has even less ability than the one of whom L'Organist writes; she cannot speak, her language being confined to squeaks, grunts and so forth. She also has very poor motor skills. When S was about 12, her parents made an application to the relevant and superior Court which deals with such matters. A person was appointed to represent S's interests, paid for not by the parents but from government funds. After a contested hearing, with substantial medical evidence, the judge ordered that the parents could arrange for S have a full hysterectomy with oophorectomy, as the doctors to perform it were satisfied that the procedure was clinically appropriate. S could have had no concept of menstruation and would probably have been terrified by it.
Such applications are not common here, and I assume that there is a similar procedure in other jurisdictions. I know that there certainly is in England. I would be surprised if the Catholic Church drew issue with it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Generally, with pre-verbal clients, if they are distressed by their menstruation, it is managed with contraception. If they are not distressed by it, they would have regular assistence with their personal care - as they would with continence issues.
The reason for wanting to avoid surgery in these women, is due to the long term effects of the disruption to the hormone system, the risks of surgery itself and the difficulties posed by surgical recovery.
For example, someone with severe pica may pull out and eat surgical stiches, there maybe difficulty keeping post-operative wound clean and infection free etc.
I had a relative, sadly now deceased at the age of 32, who was thought to be getting detached retinas. If it had happened, he would have been blind without surgery. Nonetheless family and clinical team agreed it was not in his best interests to have surgery as he would have had to be physically restrained or kept unconcious for the entire healing period if there was to be any chance of a successful surgical outcome.
[ 09. December 2014, 23:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Also, menstruation is not inherently frightening. To be frightened of blood, you need some concept of blood and why it matters. We don't castrate males because we fear they will be frightened by semen, confused by wet dreams or have poor personal hygiene. For most women menstruation is not especially painful either.
(Actually, managing menstruation with someone as able as a three year old would not be that difficult, they would have fluent language and could be taught a system. They would remain extremely vulnerable to sexual exploitation though.)
[ 09. December 2014, 23:43: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, menstruation is not inherently frightening. To be frightened of blood, you need some concept of blood and why it matters. We don't castrate males because we fear they will be frightened by semen, confused by wet dreams or have poor personal hygiene. For most women menstruation is not especially painful either.
(Actually, managing menstruation with someone as able as a three year old would not be that difficult, they would have fluent language and could be taught a system. They would remain extremely vulnerable to sexual exploitation though.)
Menstruation is not inherently frightening for someone who knows what is going on. But for someone whose experience of blood is that it goes with injury and pain, it may very well be very frightening. And while I am no expert in assessing mental age, I'd say that S is below 3. She is now in her early 20s and still has no verbal language; she has squeeks, squeals and grunts, cries and tears. Teaching her a system would be an impossibility.
I agree with your first post that there are risks in operations. I'd be surprised if all of these matters were not canvassed before the court. What I would like to hear from you on is the procedure I have referred to - the appointment of a representative for the child, the retention of legal representation and qualification of expert witnesses to assist a court reach a decision. All of course at the expense of the state both to ensure a proper level of representation and to keep clear independence from the parents.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All terribly wise, evolving compassion.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I don't think that the concept of "the sterilisation of the feebleminded" prior to World War 2 was exclusively directed at mentally handicapped young women. (Although as Doublethink points out, stopping such women from being raped might be an alternative to sterilisation.)
There are quite a lot of harsh things that can be said about the teaching of the Catholic Church prior to the Second World War but its implacable hostility to eugenics is not one of them which was, as Enoch indicates, the sort of thing supported by the enlightened and the progressive until it became fashionable in Germany after 1933.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, menstruation is not inherently frightening. To be frightened of blood, you need some concept of blood and why it matters. We don't castrate males because we fear they will be frightened by semen, confused by wet dreams or have poor personal hygiene. For most women menstruation is not especially painful either.
(Actually, managing menstruation with someone as able as a three year old would not be that difficult, they would have fluent language and could be taught a system. They would remain extremely vulnerable to sexual exploitation though.)
Menstruation is not inherently frightening for someone who knows what is going on. But for someone whose experience of blood is that it goes with injury and pain, it may very well be very frightening. And while I am no expert in assessing mental age, I'd say that S is below 3. She is now in her early 20s and still has no verbal language; she has squeeks, squeals and grunts, cries and tears. Teaching her a system would be an impossibility.
I agree with your first post that there are risks in operations. I'd be surprised if all of these matters were not canvassed before the court. What I would like to hear from you on is the procedure I have referred to - the appointment of a representative for the child, the retention of legal representation and qualification of expert witnesses to assist a court reach a decision. All of course at the expense of the state both to ensure a proper level of representation and to keep clear independence from the parents.
In adulthood, such issues are dealt with in the UK by the court of protection under the mental capacity act - not entirely sure of the process for children but I thnk they get a guardian ad litem in the legal process to advocate for them (appointed by the court).
I work with adults with LD including pre-verbal individuals, it is not my experience most of them are terrified by their menstruation. Personal hygiene is usually more of an issue; often people with severe developmental delay engage mostly sensory play - and may play with bodily waste / secretions as they feel/smell interesting - and this can be challenging for carers to manage. It is usually the case that people with this degree of developmental delay do not attain full continence. Menstruation is not uniquely more difficult in this respect than urine and faeces - and management tactics are similar. (Good pads regularly changed, lots of more interesting sensory activities offered instead - ideally after a proper sensory assessment.)
What I don't understand is how you justify full hysterectmy and ovary removal in a twelve year old on the prediction the individual will struggle with menstruation. As opposed to using medication to manage.
Pre-puberty this intervention would stunt bodily development, massively increase the risk of osteoparosis and a number of other conditions that could adversely effect the child's life. It sounds not unlike the debate over so-called "pillow angels" - seriously doubt you would get a UK court to agree such an intervention.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Reference re pillow angel - look up Ashley treatment on wiki if you want more info on this.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I don't justify full hysterectomy. Quite frankly, I do not have the knowledge to argue for or against it. What I do justify is the procedure which ultimately led a judge, having heard all the evidence abut S, to conclude that that was the appropriate course in her case.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Just to return to the original subject, the Lineamenta or preparatory document for the 2015 Ordinary Synod has been issued. In spite of the fact that certain subjects failed to get the necessary two thirds majority of votes at the Extraordinary Synod in October, I notice that none of them is off the agenda for 2015. So it looks to be just as explosive!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't justify full hysterectomy. Quite frankly, I do not have the knowledge to argue for or against it. What I do justify is the procedure which ultimately led a judge, having heard all the evidence abut S, to conclude that that was the appropriate course in her case.
I think a court process is probably the only option in contested cases - though it is unfortunate, I wouldn't want a doctor doing my conveyancing or a solicitor deciding how to rewire my house. I suspect the outcome may have less to do with the quality of the evidence and more to do with the quality of the barristers.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Obviously, the decision is reached on the basis of the evidence presented; I would not be surprised if the evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiffs (usually the parents) commonly agreed with that by the child's representative.
I really do doubt the validity of the analogy you seek to draw. The role of a barrister in many cases is to draw out the evidence of experts and then make submissions based on that evidence, whether the case is an industrial accident, a complex case of financial management, a building and construction dispute, or what is in the best interests of a child or protected person. The barristers and judges do not need to be able to carry out the procedures themselves, but to understand what the expert is saying and assess that against the non-expert matters in evidence. In other words, an expert's opinion can only be valid if the facts upon which that opinion is based are proven.
The cases in NSW are dealt with in the Protective List of the Supreme Court's Equity Division - the equivalent to the English High Court's Chancery Division. There are very few a year - a previous judge in charge of the list told me around a half dozen years ago that there were usually under 5 a year. The cases are heard in closed court, with a suitably anonymised judgment being delivered and published in open court. Routine treatment decisions are made either by the guardian of the person or a lower level specialist tribunal.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Doublethink.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Doublethink., Not sure why you referred to "contested cases". The practice here is that for such serious surgery, a court order must be obtained. An order from the relevant Tribunal is not sufficient, not is the consent of those entrusted with the normal care of the protected person.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
