|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Come on down, Trisagion
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm still puzzling through what a Host is supposed to do about that. If anything.
You did exactly what a Host could do about that. It has earned you a Styx call, and really a Hell call by proxy...
Why IngoB! That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
But I think RuthW was also justified both ways. Close call, that Styx call.
Looking after unrest and fostering a really diverse Ships Company is going to be something of a balancing act if left to the Crew. Better if Shipmates saw the value in it for themselves, I think. Both ways. That requires a certain amount of "wearing another's moccasins".
(Tips hat to 205 who made a similar point from another minority).
[And Think2 will have my guts for garters, justifiably, if I muse too much here about Ship's business. Again.]
--------------------
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
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Barnabas thinks that quote:
... Think2 will have my guts for garters, justifiably, if I muse too much here about Ship's business. Again.]
You're forgetting someone, Dear One. I have enough trouble following the various conversations without this burbling.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Plea to Hellhosts
I want to respond to several things, but haven't the time today. Please leave the thread open.
/Plea
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I don't wear garters but I would give serious consideration to a Barnabus-skin waistcoat.
The next person to enter into debate of hostliness will be referred to the admins, and will give this thread the life expectancy of a snowball.
Think²
Hellhost
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You misunderstand the point of my post entirely, Justinian. My point was simply to explain in response to queries above how Catholics could insist on loving the institution of the Church, despite her many failings. That is, I was trying to give an insider's view of why we still love the Church.
Have I ever said I don't understand why you love it? I get that part. I'm explaining why that cuts absolutely no ice with non-Catholics.
Fine. But it's not all about you. Others in this thread expressed wonderment that Catholics could be so contrary as to love so loathsome an institution. I was attempting to answer them.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Again, where do you get that Catholics can't challenge and oppose bad stuff in the Church? Have you not been listening at all? You're inventing your own material from whole cloth here. Of course, some of what you consider to be her bad behaviour may not be what we recognise as bad behaviour at all. Don't expect us to challenge stuff because it's against your list of charges.
I don't care whether you claim to oppose stuff or not. The views of the laity on contraception were extremely clear as early as 1968. A Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was undertaken in 1966, the results of which are not in dispute. The overwhelming majority came to the same viewpoint. The morally screamingly obvious one.
You really do like your highly contentious interpretations of complex matters of fact painted in infallible colours, don't you?
Without having any intention of disappearing too deeply down this (in any case totally irrelevant) rabbit-hole, my reponse to your take is: (a) the results of the commission were so "indisputatble" that they released two conflicting reports, a majority and a minority one - so little fundamental agreement was there; (b) the majority report's findings were rejected because it failed (and in some measure eventually gave up even the prentense of an attempt) to make a reasoned case consistent with the principles of existing defined Catholic teaching - some of its judgements were highly speculative and some actually contradicted previous defined teachings; (c) the widespread poor reception of the teaching which was eventually promulgated in Humanae vitae was largely the result of the majority report's having been leaked to attempt to force the Pope's hand into accepting its recommendations by engineering people's expectations that artificial contraceptives were going to be approved.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So even when the Vatican explicitely solicits the advice of laypeople it pays no attention. Even when the justification for the minority report boils down to "we can not allow contraception because it means we would be seen to have made a mistake".
Wrong. We know that Paul VI took both reports extremely seriously and weighed them properly. The Commission's job was not to produce the new teaching but to advise the Pope. You can't say that just because the Pope weighed the majority report and found it wanting that he paid no attention to the full debate. It was never in question that the final decision belonged to him. That's his job. In other news, bears are still fertilising forest floors.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
With that example of how little the views of the laity matter, what do you think you are capable of changing from within?
The commmission was made up of lay and clerical members, actually. But I fail to see how not taking the majority view as being decisive in this case is equivalent to the Church being incapable of internal change as suggested by Catholics in other areas. Some areas - defined teaching in faith and morals - are reserved to the magisterium (the teaching office of the Pope and the bishops under him) and once defined are irrefromable - but everything else is legitimately subject to change, reform, criticism and scrutiny, from outside as well as from within. That definitley includes the handling of the clerical abuse crisis.
[ 23. June 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I have to wonder if certain posted haven't reflected much on their own denominations' histories if they cannot understand how Roman Catholics can go on loving the Roman Catholic Church. Do you really think we would have to look very hard to find examples of the Episcopal Church's involvement in sins every bit as monstrous as pedophilia?
I love the Episcopal Church. I have faith that the Episcopal Church is part of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. But I do not have faith in its perfection. It is, like the Roman Catholic Church, a very sorry bride for her betrothed. Yet Jesus Christ has, all the same, looked on her and promised himself to her, and for me being a good Christian means loving the Episcopal Church.
[ 23. June 2012, 14:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Zach82: quote:
I have to wonder if certain posted haven't reflected much on their own denominations' histories if they cannot understand how Roman Catholics can go on loving the Roman Catholic Church. Do you really think we would have to look very hard to find examples of the Episcopal Church's involvement in sins every bit as monstrous as pedophilia?
Very true. We only have to look to the support many in the Episcopal Church gave to the institution of slavery and to segregation after the Civil War to get a whiff of that.
[ 23. June 2012, 18:35: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Isn't it true of Christianity as a whole? Mother of wars, of homophobia, misogyny, racist ideology, anti-science, stupidity and incompetence by the bucket-load. Yet many of us remain firmly attached to it despite all.
[ 23. June 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fine. But it's not all about you. Others in this thread expressed wonderment that Catholics could be so contrary as to love so loathsome an institution. I was attempting to answer them.
But the problem here is that you seem to equate love with unconditional support. Which is what my comments about my mother were about. Sometimes love means saying "No. Go sort yourself out. I'm not helping you with this."
quote:
You really do like your highly contentious interpretations of complex matters of fact painted in infallible colours, don't you?
Without having any intention of disappearing too deeply down this (in any case totally irrelevant) rabbit-hole, my reponse to your take is: (a) the results of the commission were so "indisputatble" that they released two conflicting reports, a majority and a minority one - so little fundamental agreement was there; (b) the majority report's findings were rejected because it failed (and in some measure eventually gave up even the prentense of an attempt) to make a reasoned case consistent with the principles of existing defined Catholic teaching - some of its judgements were highly speculative and some actually contradicted previous defined teachings;
No. This isn't about oversimplification. This is about an attempt to obscure things by the RCC.
There was indeed a minority report. There were four names on the commission that signed that report. Four out of seventy two. Or one person in eighteen. It was a fringe report - do you really expect the results of a seventy two person commission to be unanimous when advocating a change?
And you are absolutely right about why the teaching was rejected. It was rejected for the reasons given in the minority report - that it would be an active change to Roman Catholic teaching. It called out current Roman Catholic teaching as wrong. Which it was and remains. And because Pope Paul VI demonstrated a lack of humility and was unable to accept that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church could be wrong, he rejected the report endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the commission.
quote:
(c) the widespread poor reception of the teaching which was eventually promulgated in Humanae vitae was largely the result of the majority report's having been leaked to attempt to force the Pope's hand into accepting its recommendations by engineering people's expectations that artificial contraceptives were going to be approved.
Balls. The widespread poor reception of the teaching is because the teaching is morally wrong. That the methods used to come to the decision showed a lack of humility and a complete rejection of discernment are mere icing on the cake. You could have had a completely unanimous report and Humanae Vitae would still be ignored even by most Catholics.
quote:
The commmission was made up of lay and clerical members, actually.
EXACTLY! Not one single person who was a lay member signed the minority report. The lay members were only listened to in so far as they said what the Magisterium wanted them to - and when they didn't they were ignored.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But the problem here is that you seem to equate love with unconditional support.
Really? Where, precisely?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This isn't about oversimplification. This is about an attempt to obscure things by the RCC.
Uhuh. This and what follows it is more of the same certainty-plated assertion that has characterised most of your contributions on this thread. There's not going to be any real debate here - not least because I don't have the energy to feed your righteous indignation. This time, I'm not even going to assert back. What would be the point?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
There's not going to be any real debate here... This time, I'm not even going to assert back. What would be the point?
Indeed. You hold out no hope for debate, Trisagion thinks I want to live in a liberal echo-chamber without apparently wondering why I don't just go do that, IngoB is only here to sharpen his spurs ...
I drafted a long post and just deleted it. (PeteC and Think2 just heaved sighs of relief.) Too much has been posted in the last two days, and lots of folks are showing signs of being beyond tired of this and on their last nerve. So just one thing, the thing that most puzzles me at this point: in the cover-up of clerical abuse, a lot of individuals with real power in the Catholic Church in a lot of different place did the same wrong thing, but this shouldn't shake anyone's belief in the absolute moral authority of the institution?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Depends what you mean by the absolute moral authority of the institution, Ruth. One the one hand, it is a pretty central tenet of the Catholic faith that the Church has been given the divine task of teaching the truth in matters of morals and the faith - with a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly. That's what Catholics (are supposed to) believe.
But that's a teaching authority and guarantee, not a guarantee that her office-bearers will personally conduct themselves well in the exercise or pursuit of that office. It could hardly be that. So I can (and do) believe that clerics (and layfolk, of course) can behave scandalously badly - and can condemn that - without losing faith in the divine teaching authority of the Church.
Does that help?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
with a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly.
How do you know that the RCC position on marriage equality and contraception are not examples of it being exercised wrongly?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why IngoB! That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
Seriously? Well, for what it is worth, you have my well-earned respect as Shipmate. And I have little doubt that we would get along in real life, which for me is a quite separate issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think RuthW was also justified both ways. Close call, that Styx call.
Well, I would agree that RuthW's calls were justified in the sense of being in accordance with the rules and within the range of typical motivations.
However, it was also a call that desperately defended the status quo, a status quo which in this case frankly stinks. And there is no indication that she "gets" any of that, or more likely, that she has the faintest intention of "getting" it.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You hold out no hope for debate, Trisagion thinks I want to live in a liberal echo-chamber without apparently wondering why I don't just go do that, IngoB is only here to sharpen his spurs ...
Whether Trisagion's criticism was made in the right place in the right manner is one issue, whether it was accurate is quite another. You questioned a host who tried to remove some of the typical anti-Catholic curtain fire. If you really think that that constant barrage improves the hopes for real debate, then you are sorely mistaken.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So just one thing, the thing that most puzzles me at this point: in the cover-up of clerical abuse, a lot of individuals with real power in the Catholic Church in a lot of different place did the same wrong thing, but this shouldn't shake anyone's belief in the absolute moral authority of the institution?
The institution needs to do a root and branch re-think. From the top down. They need to apologise in a big way (to the victims) for all the cover ups and determine to work much harder to root out abusers and safeguard children.
That would help.
But no institution should be given absolute moral authority. Even too much respect can go the wrong way - and make people stop questioning. As the very recent case of a respected football coach shows.
Cynicism can be healthy when it questions people in positions of power.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? Where, precisely?
On reading one of your later posts, it's not unconditional support. It's supreme arrogance that the Roman Catholic Church will never be wrong because she has "a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly".
So there's never anything that she will teach that is wrong. So you don't have to support her when her doctrines are wrong - you merely assume the world to be wrong.
quote:
Uhuh. This and what follows it is more of the same certainty-plated assertion that has characterised most of your contributions on this thread.
Hey, I'm not the one claiming a divine guarantee that the teachings I am following are right.
What I am in this case is a professional statistician with experience of public consultations, what happens when a consultaiton by one person is taken over by the next, and having seen consultations rigged. And if you believe that the incoming Pope (rather than the one who ordered the commission) didn't take the result he wanted to whatever the overwhelming report the commission produced was then I've some land in Florida to sell you. Or the Eiffel Tower for scrap.
The core problem is the certainty issue. That you claim "a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly". A position whose monumental arrogance is more than the merely mortal. And that in order to change the line on contraception, the Roman Catholic Church would have had to have shown enough humility to admit a mistake - which is exactly why the Minority report recommended no change; to change would have been to admit you made a mistake.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
@ Justinian particularly (tho anyone who wants can have this one on the house). Do you not think we feel utterly, appallingly ashamed of this entire episode? However, the things that drew us to the RCC (or keep us there, if we're cradles) remain and cannot be easily abandoned. And, like it or not, yes we DO feel personally attacked by the continual sniping when we (laity and junior priests alike) can do no more than apologize. I'm not sure what more the hierarchy can do than it is - investigations are happening (see Trisagion's posts) and the Pope has made apologies. Court cases continue. I think some people will not be satisfied until the RCC is completely dismantled which, I also think, is the underlying goal of those who keep reminding us (as if we could forget) that because your Uncle Psycho is banged up for being an axe-murderer, you can have no place in decent society, or view on law and order.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
@ Justinian particularly (tho anyone who wants can have this one on the house). Do you not think we feel utterly, appallingly ashamed of this entire episode? However, the things that drew us to the RCC (or keep us there, if we're cradles) remain and cannot be easily abandoned. And, like it or not, yes we DO feel personally attacked by the continual sniping when we (laity and junior priests alike) can do no more than apologize. I'm not sure what more the hierarchy can do than it is - investigations are happening (see Trisagion's posts) and the Pope has made apologies.
Which episode? If you're talking about the paedophilia, yes I think you are appalled.
But are you serious that you can do no more than apologise? Are you serious that you don't know what else the hierarchy can do?
The Bristol Royal Infirmary case was brought up as an example of institutional failure earlier in this thread. And it was. The comparison of the responses is ... instructive. This despite there being no actual criminal acts, merely incompetence, at Bristol.
At Bristol Royal Infirmary, those responsible resigned. The CEO stepped down. The Medical Director stepped down (to be fair he was also one of the two surgeons involved). And moving this into another field, when I was at school, a kid drowned in the swimming baths. Our headmaster, although in no way directly responsible, stepped down over that.
The equivalent that should have been done by the Roman Catholic Church would have been for John Paul II to have accepted that he was the person ultimately responsible for guiding the church for more than 20 years before he even asked the CDF to sort it out and stepped down.
Instead the Roman Catholic Church fast tracked the beatification of the Pope responsible for the past 25 years.
At Bristol Royal Infirmary, heads rolled. CEO, Medical Director, and Surgeon were all stripped of their rank by the GMC.
The equivalent of that would be to not only defrock the actual abusing priests, defrock Bernard Law, and every other person with direct responsibility for the cover up.
Instead Bernard Law merely resigned as Archbishop of Boston after 65 parishes closed, and was then given a nice cushy job in the Vatican.
At the Bristol Royal Infirmary there was a full public inquiry. The equivalent should be obvious and hasn't been done (merely reports released).
Fundamentally the Roman Catholic Church has treated the child abuse issue as a string of cases of child abuse. What it has not treated it as so much is a root and branch institutional failure in which if the people in charge knew then they were culpable and if they didn't then they were incompetent.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
meh - investigations are happening, court cases are happening - compensation is being paid (not that that makes up for it I agree). I think, now, Justinian, you are getting off more than is seemly on this issue.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
meh - investigations are happening, court cases are happening - compensation is being paid (not that that makes up for it I agree). I think, now, Justinian, you are getting off more than is seemly on this issue.
Jahlove, you literally asked what more could be done. And I've told you. Those in senior positions taking responsibility like a group of professionals rather than clinging on like a group of politicians.
But other than demonstrating that the hierarchy has no moral authority I don't even consider the paedophilia particularly relevant. (I did while I was under the impression that Ratzinger himself had helped the coverups but that's a different issue).
The issue I consider morally damning for the Roman Catholic Church is their opposition to contraception. It's an absolute rejection of good and propogation of evil that should be obvious to a six year old largely because to do otherwise would be to admit that they'd made a mistake.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
bait'n'switch why doncha? Contraception and the RCC stance belong in DH. I stand my case that you seem waaay to interested in anything to do with sex of any variety Hobbies can be a useful way of letting off excess libido.
[ 24. June 2012, 21:51: Message edited by: Jahlove ]
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
bait'n'switch why doncha?
If you'd actually been reading the thread you'd have noticed that Chesterbelloc and I had been talking about Humanae Vitae and the Papal Commission on Birth Control. And I intially had thought it was that post you were responding to - you're the only person on this entire page I think to mention the sex abuse scandal.
Which was scandalous. As was the response for decades. (The John Jay report goes back for fifty years). And then when you ask what more they could have done and I tell you "Take responsibility for what they were responsible for", your response starts with "Meh."
quote:
Contraception and the RCC stance belong in DH. I stand my case that you seem waaay to interested in anything to do with sex of any variety Hobbies can be a useful way of letting off excess libido.
Given that just about every aspect where the RCC is IMO downright evil has to do with sex - whether it's the paedophilia scandal, sexism, homophobia, or contraception, I'd suggest you apply this to your celibate priesthood.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
with a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly.
How do you know that the RCC position on marriage equality and contraception are not examples of it being exercised wrongly?
Because they were arrived at by the competent person, fall within his area of competence, and are expressed explicitly as invoking that authority with which Catholics believe he has been invested by Christ. Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...Given that just about every aspect where the RCC is IMO downright evil has to do with sex - whether it's the paedophilia scandal, sexism, homophobia, or contraception, I'd suggest you apply this to your celibate priesthood.
That's a terribly bold, all encompassing "definitive" statement there, Justinian.
Going back to the paedophilia scandals, do you not think paedophilia, in its expression, is more a sexual expression of power (much of it is child rape, pure and simple) by dysfunctional persons rather than an expression of normal sexuality (which it is definitely not)?
Similarly, attempts by the hierarchy to suppress the matter would seem to me more the way an institution which has become dysfunctional operates.
In Australia all the Churches; other welfare organisations such as the Fairbridge Trust and various state Departments of Community Services have been guilty of having paedophiles in their employ and attempting to suppress the evidence of their misdeeds.
In Australia married Anglican and other clerics and church youth workers are just as likely to have been offenders as celibate Catholic priests.
Some of the worst institutional offenders in the Catholic Church were Christian Brothers who were actually laymen, not priests.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? Where, precisely?
On reading one of your later posts, it's not unconditional support. It's supreme arrogance that the Roman Catholic Church will never be wrong because she has "a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly". So there's never anything that she will teach that is wrong.
Wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And if you believe that the incoming Pope (rather than the one who ordered the commission) didn't take the result he wanted to whatever the overwhelming report the commission produced was then I've some land in Florida to sell you. Or the Eiffel Tower for scrap.
First, there is no evidence whatsoever that John XXIII was looking to change the teaching on contraception - zero. By almost any standard, John was no more theologically "progressive" than his successor's record suggests Paul VI was - if anything, the contrary. A new method of birth control did however raise new issues or throw old ones in a new light, and it couldn't be assumed in advance that that might not require a distinct approach of its own. Paul actually wanted the commission to have a wider consultation base - not a narrower one - which you would think would make the commission more difficult to "fix" rather than less. And if, as you speculate, he took his preferred answer to the commission so as to pressure it to make that the recommendation of the report, it didn't work out too well for him, did it?
But in the end, it doesn't matter - this was a consultative exercise, not a devolutionary one. No-one was ever under any impression that the decision would lie with anyone but the pope at the end of the process. No-one was working under any such misapprehension.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Contraception isn't a Dead Horse.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How do you know that the RCC position on marriage equality and contraception are not examples of it being exercised wrongly?
Because they were arrived at by the competent person, fall within his area of competence, and are expressed explicitly as invoking that authority with which Catholics believe he has been invested by Christ.
But where are the safeguards? It seems to me that anyone who managed to wheedle their way to a position of power could say anything in the "right" way, and you'd all have to obey it. Is there no scope for judging what has actually been taught? Is there no opportunity to evaluate the effects of a teaching (preferably in advance of it being implemented) and judge it on that basis?
quote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
Accepted, but blind unquestioning faith is seldom a good thing. What happens when a corrupt Pope decides it's time for you all to drink the kool-aid?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[qb]But where are the safeguards? It seems to me that anyone who managed to wheedle their way to a position of power could say anything in the "right" way, and you'd all have to obey it. Is there no scope for judging what has actually been taught? Is there no opportunity to evaluate the effects of a teaching (preferably in advance of it being implemented) and judge it on that basis?
[QUOTE][qb]Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
Accepted, but blind unquestioning faith is seldom a good thing. What happens when a corrupt Pope decides it's time for you all to drink the kool-aid?
A patient process of rationalisation, based on latent or obvious internal inconsistencies? Plus Popes have been known to apologise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A patient process of rationalisation, based on latent or obvious internal inconsistencies?
What about basing it on whether direct, observable harm is being caused to people around the world as a result of the teaching?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
with a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly.
How do you know that the RCC position on marriage equality and contraception are not examples of it being exercised wrongly?
Because they were arrived at by the competent person, fall within his area of competence, and are expressed explicitly as invoking that authority with which Catholics believe he has been invested by Christ. Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
You realise that arguing like that is exactly what makes the 'usual suspects' attacks on Catholicism relevant, don't you?
If you say that you are against gay marriage, because if we allow it, society's moral system will collapse, the churches will close, and straight people will forget how babies are made, then I can argue against you on the merits. I can engage with all of those points without mentioning the Inquisition, or indulgences, or AIDS in Africa, or child abuse cover-ups.
But if the real reason that you are against gay marriage is that you think that your church has a direct line to God and cannot be wrong, then you have shifted the terms of the debate so that I cannot engage you by arguing the point in issue. You aren't addressing the merits at all, you have changed the question to one of authority. I can only disagree with you by attacking your authority's competence. We know how that goes (“The church doesn't err”, “What, the same church that taught that you can buy forgiveness of sins?”, “We never taught that! We just took the money”, “You're telling me that makes a difference?”, “Of course – teaching that money buys forgiveness would be a heresy, but taking money for forgiveness is only a personal moral failing – we never said we were free of those”, “You Catholics are crazy”, “Help! Help! We're being oppressed!”), but whenever you claim that you are infallibly right on some contentious moral point that just about everyone else can see is wrong, then how else are we to engage with you?
Is contraception an infallible teaching, by the way? I've seen Catholics here argue that it isn't? And surely gay marriage can't be – the question of what rights and recognition we allow same sex couples is one of practical politics and equality, rather than faith? Do bishops and priests have a choice about whether they support civil marriage equality, or has the party line been defined for them?
[ 25. June 2012, 09:22: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A patient process of rationalisation, based on latent or obvious internal inconsistencies?
What about basing it on whether direct, observable harm is being caused to people around the world as a result of the teaching?
And who gets to decide that then? Whose notion of human flourishing gets to determine which pains are avoidably caused by mistaken thinking and which are ineliminably caused by the human condition? Who gets to judge social utility/staisfaction versus spiritual harm? Whose notion of spiritual harm must prevail?
In short, what is self-evident to you with your theoretical presupositions is not obvious to others with other foundational principles. You're just going to have to deal with that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And who gets to decide that then? Whose notion of human flourishing gets to determine which pains are avoidably caused by mistaken thinking and which are ineliminably caused by the human condition?
The ones where making a simple change to the laws of the land (and/or the moral teachings of a religious heirarchy) would drastically reduce people's pain are the ones caused by flawed human thinking. The ones where there's going to be pain no matter what anyone does are caused by the human condition.
Which category do you suppose the issues being discussed here are in? No, I don't even need to ask that - they're clearly in the first.
quote:
Who gets to judge social utility/staisfaction versus spiritual harm? Whose notion of spiritual harm must prevail?
"Spiritual harm" is for each individual to define for themselves. There's no authority on earth that can tell me what is and isn't good for my soul - that's between me and God.
quote:
In short, what is self-evident to you with your theoretical presupositions is not obvious to others with other foundational principles. You're just going to have to deal with that.
I am dealing with it. By trying to fight against those whose foundational principles are causing direct harm to people I know and love. By standing up for equality and tolerance. By seeking to love my neighbour rather than control him/her.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Accepted, but blind unquestioning faith is seldom a good thing. What happens when a corrupt Pope decides it's time for you all to drink the kool-aid?
Time and again the strange notion pops up that the pope, or sometimes the Vatican, is an absolutist monarchic ruler who micromanages Catholic life down to the individual at parish level. The truth is that the Catholic hierarchy is thinner and flatter than that of basically any secular organisation that you would care to name. The Church is ridiculously large and has laughably few "managers". Unsurprisingly then, the RCC essentially runs on goodwill and self-imposed obedience. There really is no Vatican Gestapo, and most power is devolved to local bishops, and again those bishops can be said to be "in control" of what happens on the parish level only in a fairly indirect manner.
Yes, there is some real power of governance there. But given the general situation of the Church, it really can only be used in emergencies, and pretty much only in reactive mode. If heads start rolling too much, then basically there is nobody left to run the show. And the laity is always more cajoled than commanded, because again there are severe practical limits to what extent any agenda can be pushed if they prove unwilling. As for a pope coming up with crazy stuff, the whole Vatican setup is a lot like what you see in "Yes, (Prime) Minister". I think one has to be more concerned about good initiatives being smothered, than about a lack of bureaucratic buffer.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You realise that arguing like that is exactly what makes the 'usual suspects' attacks on Catholicism relevant, don't you? If you say that you are against gay marriage, because if we allow it, society's moral system will collapse, the churches will close, and straight people will forget how babies are made, then I can argue against you on the merits. I can engage with all of those points without mentioning the Inquisition, or indulgences, or AIDS in Africa, or child abuse cover-ups. But if the real reason that you are against gay marriage is that you think that your church has a direct line to God and cannot be wrong, then you have shifted the terms of the debate so that I cannot engage you by arguing the point in issue.
It is completely legitimate for Catholics to on one hand hold that the RCC has Divine inspiration for its rules about faith and morals, and on the other hand argue about these rules in a "secular" manner. As long as Catholics do not use the Divine inspiration as argument, that's entirely above board. It is true then that one cannot ultimately "win" the argument against these Catholics, because - if they are really that faithful... - they will assume that it is their lack of insight and rhetoric rather a lack of inspiration for the Church which has lost the argument. But that is hardly unique: plenty of folks are likewise unmovable about their core convictions, famously so in politics. Argument on social / political / moral matters tends to be "to whom it may concern", with those arguing often not being the ones who are being addressed.
If Divine inspiration were to be used in argument (in fact it rarely is!), then one can dismiss it as easily as it is established: "I do not believe in that" is as easily said as "I believe in that". It is in fact a valid argument, but in general for a different type of discussion (one about what one should have faith in). Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with stating either position. Or following it. The only problem is that it is not per se convincing to those maintaining the other position.
None of this in the slightest justifies the typical anti-Catholic curtain fire about the paedophilia scandal (and on occasion other issues). That's essentially just an argumentum ad hominem. It is of course perfectly fine to discuss the paedophilia scandal (and there's been no lack of such threads). It is also perfectly fine to discuss the effect this has had on people inside or outside of the RCC believing in her moral authority. However, the typical usage of this is simply rhetorical. There is usually zero informational value to it, it is simply a device to put into bad light arguments one does not like and to derail discussions.
Simply put, for a proper "secular" argument about say contraception priests abusing children and bishops hiding this is just as pointless to mention as the Divine inspiration of the RCC. Contraception either is right or it is wrong, in terms of such discussions this simply does not depend on authority debased or elevated, respectively. Only if one is actually interested in changing one's moral system based on authority, then one would need to carefully weight the horrible against the Divine. Basically, that discussion would be appropriate for those seriously considering to become Catholic! For the rest, and that surely includes most of SoF, this remains just a highly convenient way of tripping up Catholics.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Justinian - sorry for the delayed response. I'm a Catholic who for whom there are only two options: Catholicism or Atheism. So, yeah, maybe somewhere inside me there's an atheist trying to get out ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm also the daughter or a radiologist and the sister of a cardiologist.
We've got into a bit of a (very interesting) tangent, so thanks first for your patience in discussing, and if we get cut off, maybe we can find a way to develop the issues into a topic for wider debate.
You see Bristol as being about failure in competence; I see it as being about failure in ethics. The protagonists *knew* they were killing their patients but they didn't give those patients (the parents, as proxies) the information that would have enabled them to give informed consent. This was most clear in the case of Joshua Loveday, where the whole team had a meeting to decide whether or not to carry out his surgery, given their high failure rate, but finally persuaded themselves to go ahead, but did not think it was worth informing the parents of this.
And while I agree that they do not appear to have been motivated by malice, they were, surely, motivated by the financial reward involved in remaining a specialist centre and by pride - very ugly human motives for failures in ethics that lead to a number of unnecessary deaths.
Anyway, to return to as near as possible to where we started, I suppose my point was only that humans are fallible. In ugly, self-motivated ways, that cause grave harm to others. A doctor posted that the words "Roman Catholic" make him think about child rape. For many, the words "heart surgeon" will make them think of child death. This is very sad, but not necessarily rational or virtuous.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is completely legitimate for Catholics to on one hand hold that the RCC has Divine inspiration for its rules about faith and morals, and on the other hand argue about these rules in a "secular" manner. As long as Catholics do not use the Divine inspiration as argument, that's entirely above board.
Agreed.
quote:
If Divine inspiration were to be used in argument (in fact it rarely is!),
I have a much broader view of the arguments that are based on divine inspiration than you do then! You've been using what I consider arguments involving divine inspiration in Dead Horses. Anything involving the natural purpose of an object is ultimately one about the divine and the nature of the divine and our relationship to it and what the divine wants - i.e. divine inspiration. Which means that the entire procreative-sex-only argument you have rests strictly on the premise of divine inspiration.
quote:
None of this in the slightest justifies the typical anti-Catholic curtain fire about the paedophilia scandal (and on occasion other issues). That's essentially just an argumentum ad hominem.
Oh, indeed it is. An argumentum ad hominem is however justifiable under one circumstance. That the nature of the man in question is on the table as an argument. If the moral authority of those high up in the RCC is ever cited in defence of their arguments, then the nature of those people is on the table. And this puts the abuse onto the table because it demonstrates the level of moral authority and moral insight they really have.
quote:
Simply put, for a proper "secular" argument about say contraception priests abusing children and bishops hiding this is just as pointless to mention as the Divine inspiration of the RCC. Contraception either is right or it is wrong, in terms of such discussions this simply does not depend on authority debased or elevated, respectively.
Agreed. But if my memory serves me properly you yourself have cited the moral insight of the pope as an argument in Dead Horses. Once that is in play so are their failings. If the arguments are being launched on their own merit then yes the abuse is irrelevant. But if the moral authority of the RCC is being cited then a good reason it has none does become relevant as a counter to that argument.
I do not believe I have ever broken the rule not to open the issue of the level of moral authority the RCC has rather than attack the arguments first (although others may have opened the can of worms before I got there) - if I have I apologise. But once moral authority is on the table, the obvious symptom of institutional corruption is absolutely relevant.
And on another note I like my arguments sandblasted every bit as much as you do for much the same reason. Except that my views are open to change and sometimes do through argument.
I'll get back to Chesterbelloc and how to rig a consultation your predecessor has landed you with later.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Time and again the strange notion pops up that the pope, or sometimes the Vatican, is an absolutist monarchic ruler who micromanages Catholic life down to the individual at parish level.
Not micromanaging perhaps, but certainly defining what they should believe. Or was Chesterbelloc wrong when he posted "it is a pretty central tenet of the Catholic faith that the Church has been given the divine task of teaching the truth in matters of morals and the faith - with a divine guarantee that she will not err in this when this teaching office is exercised properly"?
How else am I supposed to understand that, other than "if the Church (defined however you want) teaches it, we must believe it"? And once you're in that position, the kool-aid question is most apt.
quote:
The truth is that the Catholic hierarchy is thinner and flatter than that of basically any secular organisation that you would care to name. The Church is ridiculously large and has laughably few "managers".
The numbers don't matter. There could be only one "manager" for the entire world, and if he/she was obeyed completely the criticism would still stand.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
None of this in the slightest justifies the typical anti-Catholic curtain fire about the paedophilia scandal (and on occasion other issues). That's essentially just an argumentum ad hominem. It is of course perfectly fine to discuss the paedophilia scandal (and there's been no lack of such threads). It is also perfectly fine to discuss the effect this has had on people inside or outside of the RCC believing in her moral authority. However, the typical usage of this is simply rhetorical. There is usually zero informational value to it, it is simply a device to put into bad light arguments one does not like and to derail discussions.
I agree with this, I think. I am arguing for the admissibility of these arguments on threads where they are relevant, and for a fairly wide definition of relevance. I don't want them to appear on every Catholic-themed thread.
quote:
Only if one is actually interested in changing one's moral system based on authority, then one would need to carefully weight the horrible against the Divine. Basically, that discussion would be appropriate for those seriously considering to become Catholic! For the rest, and that surely includes most of SoF, this remains just a highly convenient way of tripping up Catholics.
I think there are many more Christians you realise who at one stage or another seriously consider becoming Catholics. The Catholic church is the largest Christian denomination, and therefore an important public face of our common Christian faith. It makes claims which deserve to be considered, and it's views cannot be discounted by anyone at all interested in Christian unity (and that ought to be all of us).
Of course, it may not take very long to conclude the process of seriously considering becoming Catholic, but even those who (like me) have thought about it and decided that God is not calling us to change church, may well like to hear any new reasons for accepting Catholic authority which we may not previously have known or understood. If I am engaging with you, or another Catholic, on this sort of question it is because I genuinely want to know what you think. I doubt that I am exceptional in that.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Justinian - sorry for the delayed response. I'm a Catholic who for whom there are only two options: Catholicism or Atheism. So, yeah, maybe somewhere inside me there's an atheist trying to get out
I'm also the daughter or a radiologist and the sister of a cardiologist.
We've got into a bit of a (very interesting) tangent, so thanks first for your patience in discussing, and if we get cut off, maybe we can find a way to develop the issues into a topic for wider debate.
It is! One of the few times on such threads I've actually seen new territory opened and thank you.
quote:
You see Bristol as being about failure in competence; I see it as being about failure in ethics.
No. I see it as a failure in ethics as well for precisely the reasons you indicate. The failure to stop operating was a failure in ethics in exactly the same way the coverup of the RCC was a failure in ethics. But what was being covered up was, in the case of paedophilia, clearly and unequivocally wrong to any observer. In the case of Bristol there was no one single operation until the one you name that was morally wrong. Taken together and analysed they showed to be practically wrong and covering this up was morally wrong but that's not the same black and white of child abuse.
quote:
The protagonists *knew* they were killing their patients but they didn't give those patients (the parents, as proxies) the information that would have enabled them to give informed consent. This was most clear in the case of Joshua Loveday, where the whole team had a meeting to decide whether or not to carry out his surgery, given their high failure rate, but finally persuaded themselves to go ahead, but did not think it was worth informing the parents of this.
Again, here, the actions at Bristol were wrong and it was a scandal for a good reason. But essentially the problem was incompetence. To me there's clear water between making excuses to yourself for incompetence (i.e. performing acts that you are supposed to do just not doing them very well) and making excuses to yourself for criminal behaviour (i.e. performing acts that you are simply not supposed to do at all). Both are acts of deception but only in one of them is there a hard line you crossed.
quote:
And while I agree that they do not appear to have been motivated by malice, they were, surely, motivated by the financial reward involved in remaining a specialist centre and by pride - very ugly human motives for failures in ethics that lead to a number of unnecessary deaths.
Oh, agreed.
quote:
Anyway, to return to as near as possible to where we started, I suppose my point was only that humans are fallible. In ugly, self-motivated ways, that cause grave harm to others. A doctor posted that the words "Roman Catholic" make him think about child rape. For many, the words "heart surgeon" will make them think of child death. This is very sad, but not necessarily rational or virtuous.
Oh, humans are fallible. But I don't know whether you're aware of the parable of only a few rotten apples in the barrel. Ever seen what happens if you leave rotten fruit around good fruit for a couple of days? It infects the entire barrel. You need to get the rotten fruit out fairly fast (as ultimately was done, although not fast enough) or you end up with rot everywhere (how many countries in the RCC have had multiple accounts of child abuse?)
As I mentioned, the CEO of Bristol PCT both stepped down and was struck off. When someone drowned in my school swimming pool (I was a witness at the inquest) our headmaster stepped down despite being nowhere near the incident personally. This is the level of accountability I was brought up to expect from the head of an organisation that has had a systematic failure. And despite far deeper and further reaching malfeasance than either at my school or Bristol West.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As I mentioned, the CEO of Bristol PCT both stepped down and was struck off.
Actually, you're right. I can't argue. In terms of expressing remorse there's no comparison. It was reported that one of the two surgeons wept as he said he could never make right what he had done, and though his life had been ruined, he acknowledged that anything he suffered could not compare to the pain of losing a child.
Doctors win on that one. The RCC could learn from them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Actually, you're right. I can't argue. In terms of expressing remorse there's no comparison. It was reported that one of the two surgeons wept as he said he could never make right what he had done, and though his life had been ruined, he acknowledged that anything he suffered could not compare to the pain of losing a child.
Doctors win on that one. The RCC could learn from them.
Thank you and yes.
For all I'm arguing that not reporting incompetence is more defensible than not reporting child abuse, the difference is a quantitative one not a qualitative one. You're absolutely right that the coverups are comparable in terms of motivation and effect and that both institutions ruined lives by covering up. This is a side issue; the two incidents in terms of motivation are about as comparable as such incidents can be. Tragic, life ruining, suppressing of whistle blowers to prevent rocking the boat.
But the institutional response from the NHS was fundamentally different. The Trust (I do beg the PCT's pardon) acted as I would expect a decent body to act. The way my school acted after a single incident that ended in death by misadventure. And the Roman Catholic Church, which far more than any of the others, has failed to follow this time-worn example. This when if the RCC is to have any authority at all, that authority is moral authority.
People will do bad things. And I don't expect priests to be superhuman. I do, however, expect any organisation that claims its foundations to be a moral one to, in such circumstances, set at least as good a moral example as either my school or the organisation my father worked for when it had a scandal caused by poor management. (Another NHS hospital as it happens - and no living person was directly harmed).
That was the sort of example I grew up with for decent behaviour from those at the top of an organisaion when there has been serious mismanagement. (OK, so I was an undergrad by the time of the Mortuary Scandal). That is what I therefore consider normal from decent human beings because that is what I grew up with. And the Roman Catholic Church has consistently failed to reach the standards set by a second rate school and a mediocre at best local hospital despite a deep and wide-spread moral failure that dwarfs the examples I have seen personally.
@Jahlove, does this explain why I consider the response of the senior members of the RCC to be extremely inadequate? And why I consider your 'meh' to be a level of apathy I find ... problematic at best?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How else am I supposed to understand that, other than "if the Church (defined however you want) teaches it, we must believe it"? And once you're in that position, the kool-aid question is most apt.
Quite apart from the role that the Holy Spirit plays in all this, as mentioned, the actual setup of the Vatican and the RC hierarchy at large makes crazy rulings rather unlikely. I'm not saying that it would be impossible for the pope to get a surprise "ex cathedra" out in the wild, avoiding all consultations, translations, official paperwork and whatnot. But that pope would have to avoid as well any sort of sign of madness in any other matter, or in the wording of the dogma, so as to avoid a charge of insanity which would mean that the Roman See would have been impeded (making the declaration void). See canons 412 and 335. Oh, and the pope cannot simply declare against established dogma either. It's not "newer dogma beats older dogma" there, truth has no decay time. If at all its the other way around (canon 194 may allow for self-removal of the pope from office by declaring against established dogma - though I do not know who would have the authority to decided that that has happened...).
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There could be only one "manager" for the entire world, and if he/she was obeyed completely the criticism would still stand.
Sure. However, since no pope ever has been obeyed completely and no pope ever will, it's a rather pointless criticism. The power of the pope over the RCC is often more like the power of the UN over the nations than like the power of Stalin over the USSR.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, it may not take very long to conclude the process of seriously considering becoming Catholic, but even those who (like me) have thought about it and decided that God is not calling us to change church, may well like to hear any new reasons for accepting Catholic authority which we may not previously have known or understood. If I am engaging with you, or another Catholic, on this sort of question it is because I genuinely want to know what you think. I doubt that I am exceptional in that.
Great. However, that is simply a topic for a quite different thread. Because I sure would not try to convince you, or for that matter most people on SoF, of the authority of the pope based on the rulings of the RCC on gay marriage or like matters. It might work the other way around: if I can convince you of the pope's authority on other grounds, I may be able to overcome your resistance to these rulings. But it would be stupid to take the path of greatest resistance. And apart from such "tactical" concerns, it is simply not at all the case that these rulings establish the authority even to myself. Gay marriage is wrong therefore the pope - that in fact doesn't work for me any more than it does for you. So why should I feel the duty to discuss the powers of the pope whenever we hit contentious issues? You do not admit an argument from authority on these matters from me, why should I admit an argument against authority from you?
I will put this one out there though: Given human nature after the fall, if you agree easily with all your church teaches then you can be sure that your church is wrong on at least some of these matters. Truth needs must be a little painful for us, or a lot. The search for a religion / denomination / community that fits one's convictions to a tee is per se wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Sorry, the third quote was from Eliab not Marvin.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And who gets to decide that then? Whose notion of human flourishing gets to determine which pains are avoidably caused by mistaken thinking and which are ineliminably caused by the human condition?
The ones where making a simple change to the laws of the land (and/or the moral teachings of a religious heirarchy) would drastically reduce people's pain are the ones caused by flawed human thinking. The ones where there's going to be pain no matter what anyone does are caused by the human condition. Which category do you suppose the issues being discussed here are in? No, I don't even need to ask that - they're clearly in the first.
Your purely subjective criteria are not universally shared, even by other liberal-minded people, let alone self-obvious, Marvin. You can bawl them as pretty a shade of positive as you like, but the rest of us will still exist with our differing conceptions of the good when you're finished.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Who gets to judge social utility/staisfaction versus spiritual harm? Whose notion of spiritual harm must prevail?
"Spiritual harm" is for each individual to define for themselves. There's no authority on earth that can tell me what is and isn't good for my soul - that's between me and God.
If your really believe that no one can ever know that something is spiritually bad for you without your also knowing it - if you are not merely the supreme but the sole judge of your spiritual wellbeing, the captain and full crew of your soul - then (sincerely) may God help you. There are plenty of spiritually harmful things that I never imagined for a minute were doing me any damage at all until I abandoned them, without a shred of personal conviction, under obedience. Turns out that I am not always the best judge of my spiritual welfare after all.
[ 25. June 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Chesterbelloc:
But that's a teaching authority and guarantee, not a guarantee that her office-bearers will personally conduct themselves well in the exercise or pursuit of that office. It could hardly be that. So I can (and do) believe that clerics (and layfolk, of course) can behave scandalously badly - and can condemn that - without losing faith in the divine teaching authority of the Church.
And ...
quote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
So more questions: is there any scenario that could in theory undermine the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church? And can you imagine any scenario that would undermine your own faith in the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church? What if the hypothetical bad behavior had something to do with the exercise of the teaching authority?
I do understand the distinction between a person and an office you're getting at, Chesterbelloc, but I am not aware of the existence of any office that has persisted for any appreciable length of time without being shaped the holders of that office and the way they chose to exercise their authority. So it's far easier for me to apply the "by their fruits ye shall know them" test than to take "on this rock I shall build my church" literally. I realize that this leaves me open to the "who are you to judge?" accusation, but to my mind Catholics are equally open to that accusation because they have decided to place their trust in the Catholic Church.
quote:
IngoB:
You questioned a host who tried to remove some of the typical anti-Catholic curtain fire. If you really think that that constant barrage improves the hopes for real debate, then you are sorely mistaken.
I said in my second post in the Styx:
quote:
... the specific issue here is whether the Catholic bishops have the moral authority to judge the nuns, given their recent failures as a group and the church hierarchy's historical failures. The nuns have a particular place in the church, and so the bishops' moral standing with regard to the nuns is a much narrower issue than their moral standing in general.
I was not trying to promote a "constant barrage" of anti-Catholic posts. Though seeing as you have said more than once that your purpose here is to hone your arguments, I would think you'd welcome all the incoming fire you could get.
quote:
IngoB:
Only if one is actually interested in changing one's moral system based on authority, then one would need to carefully weight the horrible against the Divine. Basically, that discussion would be appropriate for those seriously considering to become Catholic! For the rest, and that surely includes most of SoF, this remains just a highly convenient way of tripping up Catholics.
Not true. Just because other Christians don't see the Catholic Church as invested with divine authority doesn't mean we don't believe in divine authority per se. Interacting with folks who believe quite firmly in divine authority vested in the institution of the Catholic Church helps me clarify my own thinking both about the divine and institutions.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your purely subjective criteria are not universally shared, even by other liberal-minded people, let alone self-obvious, Marvin. You can bawl them as pretty a shade of positive as you like, but the rest of us will still exist with our differing conceptions of the good when you're finished.
The same can be said for yours. The significant difference is you're asking me to take your criteria purely on faith, whereas I can at least point to observable phenomena to support mine.
quote:
If your really believe that no one can ever know that something is spiritually bad for you without your also knowing it - if you are not merely the supreme but the sole judge of your spiritual wellbeing, the captain and full crew of your soul - then (sincerely) may God help you. There are plenty of spiritually harmful things that I never imagined for a minute were doing me any damage at all until I abandoned them, without a shred of personal conviction, under obedience. Turns out that I am not always the best judge of my spiritual welfare after all.
I would genuinely be interested to hear an example, if you felt comfortable sharing such a personal thing online of course.
But don't get me wrong - other people can and do advise and teach. They just can't command. Big difference.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your purely subjective criteria are not universally shared, even by other liberal-minded people, let alone self-obvious, Marvin. You can bawl them as pretty a shade of positive as you like, but the rest of us will still exist with our differing conceptions of the good when you're finished.
The same can be said for yours. The significant difference is you're asking me to take your criteria purely on faith, whereas I can at least point to observable phenomena to support mine.
But, Marvin, I'm not asking you to accept anything on faith at all - I'm just explaining my foudational principles. Also, faith is a gift which, although one has to leave oneself open to receiving it, cannot normally be switched on at will. Finally, the Catholic faith has to be (and Catholics consider it to be) consonant with reason, not inimical to it. Have a squint at Fides et ratio some time to get a recent take on the relationship between faith and reason. The old saw "Credo ut intelligam" (I believe in order that I may understand") applies here.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would genuinely be interested to hear an example, if you felt comfortable sharing such a personal thing online of course.
I don't mind saying that my whole attitude to sexual ethics changed only after I attempted to live the life the Church was teaching me to (not that I was ever a lowdown, lank lothario, mind ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But don't get me wrong - other people can and do advise and teach. They just can't command. Big difference.
Same with the Catholic Church, for the most part - at any rate, the "command" is on the conscience, not one with the power to constrain. That kind of command - of the "Go and sin no more" variety - is just an exercise of teaching. It's hardly as if twenty chain-swinging Swiss guards suddenly appear at your door if you don't buckle under.
[ 26. June 2012, 08:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[I]s there any scenario that could in theory undermine the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church? And can you imagine any scenario that would undermine your own faith in the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church? What if the hypothetical bad behavior had something to do with the exercise of the teaching authority?
Good question, Ruth. I both cases, I'm not sure, to be honest. Obviously, if there were an attempt formally to define as a doctrine something that was clearly incompatible with the apostolic deposit (say, a document that dropped the notion of the full and distinct godhood of the Holy Ghost, or denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ) I might be shaken into doubt. But to a lesser extent, if any direct and unambiguous contradiction with previously defined doctrine were to appear in a fully "official" papal teaching document I'd be lft scratching my head a lot and wondering how that can have been allowed to happen. Perhaps it's a measure of my naivety that I don't believe anything like that will happen.
As to whether, having (as Catholics believe) been endowed and entrusted with it by Christ, the Church under the successor of Peter can ever do anything to lose that teaching authority - no, I don't think so. As a matter fo faith. But she could and sometimes has done a lot to make her unworthy of it, even if it remains until Our Lord's return her duty to exercise it properly.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I do understand the distinction between a person and an office you're getting at, Chesterbelloc, but I am not aware of the existence of any office that has persisted for any appreciable length of time without being shaped the holders of that office and the way they chose to exercise their authority.
Fair enough. But, rough-hew them how they may, the holders of the offices of the Church, in particular the bishpos and popes, cannot change the underlying nature and mission of those offices, even if the external and inessential attributes and circumstances of them are subject to change.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I do understand the distinction between a person and an office you're getting at, Chesterbelloc, but I am not aware of the existence of any office that has persisted for any appreciable length of time without being shaped the holders of that office and the way they chose to exercise their authority.
Given that the particular office we are talking about has been exercised for close to two millennia all over the world (at least the world as known to Europeans...), it seems rather petty to focus on some recent problems in some places, no matter how horrible they may have been considered by and in themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I was not trying to promote a "constant barrage" of anti-Catholic posts. Though seeing as you have said more than once that your purpose here is to hone your arguments, I would think you'd welcome all the incoming fire you could get.
My motivations do not determine what is right for you to do. Furthermore, I have no interest in endlessly reiterating these matters. The only thing that could potentially hone is patience and equanimity, and I've plenty of opportunity to exercise those anyhow.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not true. Just because other Christians don't see the Catholic Church as invested with divine authority doesn't mean we don't believe in divine authority per se. Interacting with folks who believe quite firmly in divine authority vested in the institution of the Catholic Church helps me clarify my own thinking both about the divine and institutions.
How does that make what I said not true? My point was simply that any such considerations of authority are actually a separate discussion. Quite possibly a discussion worth while having, but then definitely something for a different thread. The typical way this stuff gets used is not to shed any particular light on authority, but simply to dismiss an argument or opinion by appeal to personal failures. That's an argumentum ad hominem, and it gets old pretty damn quick.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I do understand the distinction between a person and an office you're getting at, Chesterbelloc, but I am not aware of the existence of any office that has persisted for any appreciable length of time without being shaped the holders of that office and the way they chose to exercise their authority.
Given that the particular office we are talking about has been exercised for close to two millennia all over the world (at least the world as known to Europeans...), it seems rather petty to focus on some recent problems in some places, no matter how horrible they may have been considered by and in themselves.
Do you want us to talk about the Banquet of the Chestnuts? Or Simony and the 95 Theses? Or the Great Schism? Or selling out to Constantine 1700 years ago? Or the Holy Inquisition? Or...?
Or do you want us to talk about unquestioned offices like the Divine Right of Kings? And either Oliver Cromwell or Mme. La Guilotine?
It is hardly petty to talk about things that are here and now. But the history of the Papacy is a long and dishonourable one - like people in any other office that is assumed to be above reproach. And by and large we've stripped the power from these offices because the echo chamber that gathers around them invites corruption in the office holders.
But I think that restricting issues to a timeperiod of the past 100 years is hardly petty - no one has a first hand memory longer than that.
Now you might have an argument that the RCC looks good by the standards of a 16th century monarchy. As indeed it does. But is that the standard you think the Roman Catholic Church should be judged by.
quote:
The typical way this stuff gets used is not to shed any particular light on authority, but simply to dismiss an argument or opinion by appeal to personal failures. That's an argumentum ad hominem, and it gets old pretty damn quick.
The appeal to the person and the office is also argument ad hominem. If you make it about the moral authority then don't be surprised when it blows up in your face.
If you keep the argument away from the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church then fine. But you seem to be under the misapprehension that you can talk about the pope and the authority of the office without talking about the pope and the authority of the office. You're not only launching an argument ad hominem but then objecting when it's carried through. If you don't want it on the table, stop putting it on the table.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
