|According to some really right wing outlets, these two are smiling over their plan to turn the entire globe into one big Marxist colony through wealth redistribution. Notice the red book?|
President Obama met with Pope Francis yesterday at the Vatican. The Vatican still stands. The Earth still orbits the sun. The political scene has not dramatically changed. Most everything is exactly as it was before these two men exchanged gifts and shook hands....including the spin on what really happened. If you get your information from media outlets that tend to the right, PF dressed down PO over ACA, birth control and abortion, gay marriage, and trampling on the religious freedom of the USCCB and Hobby Lobby to control the sex lives of American women. If you get your information from the other side of the media equation, the culture war issues were an after thought compared to Syria, Lebanon, the Sudan, Palestine, other global hot spots, pervasive income inequality, and the human trafficking and slave trade.
When I look at the issues that Pope Francis has stressed since his election just over one year ago, it's hard for me to believe he would concentrate on the ability of American corporations to exercise their supposed religious rights, when it is US based international corporations who are the prime movers in global income inequality. It's hard to believe PF would concentrate on gay marriage laws in the US when conversing with the man who is in charge of the world's biggest military industrial complex. I have a feeling that's why the one gift Pope Francis gave to President Obama that is not mentioned by the US press is a medallion of the Angel of Peace. There's a message here that the parochial culture war concerns of the USCCB are not the primary concerns of global leaders--religious or secular. I suspect this is a message the Cardinal Burke's of the USCCB are not going to hear.
The real business was most likely exchanged between Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin and the less mentioned members of President Obama's team, Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. I would imagine the religious freedom measures discussed here had less to do with Hobby Lobby and more to do with Iraq, Syria, and other nations in which the numbers of Christians who are experiencing martyrdom is a real religious liberty issue unlike the politically contrived issues in the US. I have no doubt the US issues were brought up if only because US conservatives represent a large chunk of Vatican donations. US bishops, unlike their Northern European counterparts who enjoy tax subsidies, are beholden to their major financial donors and those tend to be affiliated with the one percent, meaning the USCCB's agenda too often appears for sale to the highest bidder. Pope Francis certainly has larger global concerns and recognizes that President Obama does as well. No matter how right wing news outlets wants to spin things, US politics took a back seat to these larger global concerns, and that is as it should be.
While I certainly think yesterday was about more than a photo op, I do not think it was earth shaking either. It may be that the president and the pope exchanged phone numbers as well as gifts and that isn't a bad thing. Pope Francis has experience in global areas that President Obama does not, and vice versa. An open information exchange between these two men is a good thing. It's a much better thing in fact, the locking horns over birth control and gay marriage. It sets a needed example of dialogue over confrontation and that's something both men have said they firmly believe in. PO, in his remarks afterward mentioned one thing that I have written repeatedly. The issue of wealth distribution is becoming a serious national security threat. Pope Francis would certainly agree with this given his experience in Argentina. For this alone I am glad the two met. It is here that these two men have much to share....even if some folks think that sharing will lead to global Marxism.
Because what you are saying very directly contradicts my lived experience. You sound like someone who has been reading the leadership manuals and have yet to learn the limits of those manuals in application. In something as inconsequential as military training and military life when compared to faith in God. And you do the same thing when it comes to Faith in God. You totally discount lived experience of other people every time it contradicts your Catechism.ReplyDelete
Sir you come across as if you are omniscient and I am just pointing out that you are young. Perhaps younger in mind than someone born in 88. Wisdom comes with years of experience…..ReplyDelete
I don't believe she is Orthodox as most good catholics are not orthodox either. There are some who are orthodox that simply belong to cults….ReplyDelete
Yes, I agree, expect that you are still a little wet under the ears.ReplyDelete
Because you take the position of some one who knows it all and we have all heard it and found that your way of thinking is bound down to your cultish way of belief.ReplyDelete
Your omniscients is only exceeded by your humility.ReplyDelete
So you deny that it is a libel to say that the Church advocates the covering up of an abusive priest's crimes?ReplyDelete
Put the proof in front of me, and then you can expect me to admit what is right in front of me.
Do one. I shit more military experience than you have. I haven't been on the ranges all day because I'm some spotty kid with a manual, but because my regiment requires it.ReplyDelete
I'm telling you how training is nowadays. I will not tell you again.
It's not my twentysomething years of wisdom though, it's the Church's twothousandandsomething years of wisdom. That's why I'm confident.ReplyDelete
You hear someone defend the Church, and call It arrogance. Yet you put forward your own ideas against the Church, and feign humility.
You're actually just talking nonsense now.ReplyDelete
I'm not in a cult. I think you should find a better word to express whatever it is you're trying to say here.ReplyDelete
Truth is a pure defense of libel. I've told you my experience. You refuse to believe it. You'd rather call me a liar.ReplyDelete
The priest who abused me abused over two hundred (mostly boys) between the late 1950's and the late 1980's. He was sent away a few times, counseled, and returned to places where he continued his preying. I spent nine years in the 90's on the sexual abuse committee for my diocese, chairing the meetings right next to the bishop. The accusations started in the early sixties, but were only heeded in the mid to late eighties, and only after secular authority was called in. Why did two hundred kids and their families say nothing? Were they all oblivious, or were they counseled that way? And just so you know, that is just one of the perpetrators. I know what I'm talking about, because I lived it and I helped my diocese with it.
I still love the church, enough to pray there and raise my kids there. How does that happen without the grace of God?
Am I still lying? Do you still want notarized proof? Are you really in the sem? (don't have to answer that, although you conveniently ignore most of my questions) Are you going to try and lead the faithful with such a hard heart?
You call me hopeless. I still hope for you. I've learned to forgive. You need to open your eyes. The faithful are all around you, and you only want the pious and the blind.
I'm never going to find adequate words of consolation for your bad experiences. Horrendous.ReplyDelete
Probably bad taste to continue the debate, unless you particularly want to..
You've yet to demonstrate that the Church teaches error, whereas the errors of other religious groups are often their defining features.ReplyDelete
In such a light, what is so offensive to you about fidelity to the Church and acceptance of its authority to teach?
It is not brainwashing to disagree with those who reject the Church.
A) The Church does not claim never to make mistakes, it claims never to teach error in matters of faith and morals and to be the institution through which God nourishes and guides His faithful.ReplyDelete
B) You have still yet to scientifically overturn any Catholic teaching.
C) Just because a leadership is not always in accordance with your personal desires does not make that leadership false or arrogant.
No, it wouldn't. It would be knowing what God has told us. Which is what has happened.ReplyDelete
You just don't have a Catholic understanding of any of this..
Not an accurate description at all. There is one Church.ReplyDelete
Alternatively, the Bible is untrue.
Alternatively, Jesus lied.
What'll it be?
Typing is cold. It can't give the nuance of voice, of touch. I've spent a lot of time with you because you need this, and I guess I do as well. Please read this with gentle firmness, and not with defiance.ReplyDelete
I don't need your consolation.
That is not a rejection of you. My life is good, blessed, graced. Those parts of my life are no different than anyone else's. I tend to hold them back because they quite literally scare people. But you are here with a group of people who have experienced deep pain and rejection as well. Gay people determined to create family love. Women called to lead. Illness striking for no damn good reason. Unheeded prophets.
If I really believe that God loves me, then why am I abandoned at that time, or now? Jesus knew that feeling. We are not abandoned. I can tell you that I would not be open to love without the pain that forced me to fight. Jesus sets the template -- we die to rise.
Your constant theme, and a good one by the way, is connecting to the 2000 years we have been trying to follow Jesus, to tame the whirlwind. Here's the deal. You need to figure out why all of the people here still believe while the church rejects them. Does the 2000 years really carve us out? Or do we the people of God simply have more to learn, more to grow, more love to give? I think you will drive yourself insane if you try to think it out. Try to feel it out. Remember that we are told to love, a dangerous emotion and another whirlwind (probably the same one, but it's tough to be in a storm). I think you'll find a church too fearful to be itself, forever defining boundaries to keep the ones who scare us away. The church fathers did not set up the rigid ladder of rules and walls. Our fears (and theirs) did. Overcoming fear and pain to love and live is just...life. It's how the Spirit takes us in.
PS Bad taste? I think I've proven I have more bad taste than you can imagine. Not that I'm competitive.
Listen. What I'm telling you isn't some niche SSPX type oddity, it is the basic content of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is what has always been taught.ReplyDelete
If you reject that, as a confirmed Catholic, that is a big deal.
So they? Ok then.ReplyDelete
Do they? Ok then. It should be even easier for you to show that I'm using a 'cultish' interpretation which does not accord with the cateshism/s.ReplyDelete
Incorrect. Please refer to your catechism or write to your local bishop for clarification.ReplyDelete
It has authority. That is not the same thing as "being authoritarian".ReplyDelete
I'm glad your life is happy, but it is appalling that you think the Church is rejecting you or anyone else. The Church is how God pours out His Graces, it is through the Church that we draw closer to God and come to welcome Him into our lives.ReplyDelete
The Church doesn't wall anyone out. It accepts all, and yet you reject and libel it.
It's a mad situation.
Oh, I agree. It is indeed a mad situation. And you are right that the church accepts everyone, the 2000 years and all. But then, those abused by priests and nuns get set aside. Can't have gay people reaching out to each other. Can't have women in charge, or calling upon the Lord for us, or asking God to incarnate. Are these really our selfish rantings, the babies wailing for milk until they grow up?ReplyDelete
The Church is how God pours out His graces -- and yet, try to feel the rejection of so so many. Personally (and I stress, being honest and not pretending to be right), the hierarchy that we have now is appalling. They run scared all the time, hiding behind closed doors and lawyers briefs, creating barriers rather than opening doors, curating a dusty museum rather than making food and feeding people. How is that the reflection of God's leadership? Do I sit and obey, trusting that God always guides? Or do I trust that the Spirit has taught me to love, and start demanding that love be our guiding principle?
Look at your middle paragraph. The church doesn't wall anyone out, and yet all of these people feel that way. You say I reject the church. I don't, but you need to work on why and how. You say I libel. I'm telling you the truth.
Why doesn't it add up? And is your response toward people, or toward rules? Here's where I would start. If people are evil and need to be herded toward God, tricked into doing things right to appease a taskmaster, then I agree with a rule based approach. However, I think God made us good, not bad. (Sorry, St Augustine. Thanks for your erudition, but I think original sin only works if Adam and Eve are real, like you thought.) If God made us good, then we can be attracted to the good, not herded away from the evil. And I can tell you, that seems to be the way love works. Attraction and healing, not walls and unsullied purity.
A long post with much that calls out for response, but before being led onto new ground it makes sense to bring the initial discussion to a conclusion.ReplyDelete
You libelled the Church as teaching us to cover up child abuse. I asked you to show me the teaching. You could not do so.
Is that established, so that we might move on?
When they were installing the Minute Man III version so that was about thirty years ago or so. I have a friend who served in the nuclear navy and they had a similar protocol plus they were drilled and drilled and drilled to the point they didn't even think, they just pulled their launch grip. The Air Force guys turned keys. In the AF case two guys each had one key. One key armed the missiles at their actual command center, the other key launched missiles at some other command center. They never knew who had which key or which command centers were locked in with theirs. Part of this was for tighter security and part of it was to diffuse any moral concerns they might have had since technically one of them was only arming missiles and neither of them knew which of them had the launch key.ReplyDelete
Golly Moses, rules again. There is no written rule to promote child abuse. And yet, every diocese has the same problem. In the nine dioceses who have been forced to report to secular authority (and how bizarre is that to us?), each one had gravely underreported. This goes on EVERY diocese. Not one could stop it, or slow it down, or show a loving response. You show me that. You can't.ReplyDelete
To top it off, we do know that the bishops were told privately to report to Rome, but not the police. How is it that good Christian people must resort to secular authority to rein in their own hierarchy? Each bishop (and Ratzinger) knew who the abusers were, and that the rapes continued. They kept sending them back out there to rape again. Not one stopped the carnage. Not one.
Try to see this. Every bishop we've forced to raise the curtain has been lying. To us. Proven. Look at Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago. Look at Albuquerque. New Orleans. And I remember the Vatican line from JPII and Ratzinger that this was specifically an American problem. They knew. Why did they lie? Look at Australia. Look at Poland. Look at Ireland. Read the ugly news. This is not libel. It is horrible, but it is not libel. Stop fooling yourself.
So many good and faithful people get nauseous around our altar now. Until you see that, you won't love. You'll just spout the rules, and the history, and you'll wonder why no one can see how good we all really are.
The Church does not even look at the science of the zygote and why most in women not using BC pills never implant. This has become one of the new poor teachings like the earth rotates around the sun, a teaching that the Church would have put to death Galileo had he not recanted it. Yet it was true. The Church also taught that slaves should obey their masters. They also teach that priests are somehow greater people than are the laity. I could go on and on. These are some of the very poor teaching and 90% of the people do not and most will never believe them.ReplyDelete
Many on this board have read and reread the Catholic catechism and studied many years of theology. You see we understand that leaders use the catechism to teach what they think as ideal and this is a good approach for the adolescent mind. After a time though, many people for their own ethical reasons must begin to think for themselves because the thoughts of one generation are not so ageless as you seem to think. We do learn from previous generations and we grow into more understanding from their ideas.ReplyDelete
Your inability to get past the catechism, your feelings that truth is ageless and does not evolve over time, your feelings of absolute obedience to leaders and your obvious set of mind washed principles are indeed evidence enough.ReplyDelete
You can not engage with others on this board because we will not agree that you have omniscience. This know at all feeling that you continue to manifest is indeed cultish and misuse of what the Spirit is attempting to teach us in every generation.
"The issue of wealth distribution is becoming a serious national security threat. Pope Francis would certainly agree with this given his experience in Argentina. For this alone I am glad the two met. It is here that these two men have much to share....even if some folks think that sharing will lead to global Marxism." I Agree wholeheartedly, colkoch!ReplyDelete
And you Invictus show the arrogance of omniscience --- one who understands all because of what people in past generations believed. Well, the world of the Holy Spirit is moving much too fast for you in what She is telling People, and particularly faithful scholars in each generation. The Great Mind of God will never be know by any pure mortal including you or any Pope. We finite beings can, however, listen to Her in each generation to learn more. What could be more sinful than not listening to what the Spirit tells us????ReplyDelete
Your strict obedience to leaders and quotes of omniscience mark you as a cult member. So no another word is not necessary. Perhaps you should give it some thought.ReplyDelete
I am at a loss as to what kind of world the Wall Street 1% think they are leaving their kids. Six security guards in walled and guarded communities are not going to stop thousands of PO'd folks who know they will never reach that level of wealth. Especially since they can't feed their own kids.ReplyDelete
How right you are! That's why we must salvage the message of Jesus that we are both separate from, yet one with each other. I read NCR comments and often wonder where did we lose the sense that we are ALL sisters and brothers in this world.ReplyDelete
Here's a very short video you might like:
IT'S TIME, a book by Michael Morwood. http://vimeo.com/89802737
If you were to engage and were a serious participant in conversing by not always assuming that you KNOW what is truth, I would do just that. As it is---- just not worth the energy because if I showed you, you would only deny the facts......... To see clearly now seems very difficult for you. Perhaps you could find an opthamologist as a guide to spirituality. You have a lot of religion but little spirituality. That is true for so many cultish young thinkers. There is hope though in your youth. You seem to be now sewing your oats with authoritarian religion. It may not always be true if you gain more wisdom with age.ReplyDelete
Exactly! For all that conservatives talk of preserving tradition and social order, their adherence to free market ideology is midwifing the social breakdown they fear. The economist Joseph Schumpeter presented that process of capitalist economies is one of creative destruction back in the 1930's. New technology displaces the old and raises the standards of living for a society. Within the last 20 years , more and more people are seeing the destruction part and not the creative part that enables societies to flourish. On some of the wonky economics blogs I read, Thomas Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century is saying the same thing; we are headed into some deep manure if gov'ts don't reverse the laissez faire direction they've been enacting since the end of the Cold War.ReplyDelete
It would be interesting to hear a pastor of any Christian religion to once a again point out form his pulpit that greed is still a Capital Sin. The top .2% of our society owned 27% of the resources in 2010. That increase in wealth of the very few seems to keep increasing. That is really a national security issue as if it continues, we will have people rioting in the streets and there may be whole sale assassinations of the very rich. They forget that after the French revolution, the queen lost her head. The real national security risk is to allow the very rich to return us to the Feudal system. This will indeed cause revolution. Hopefully it will be political, but as we are deprived of one person,one vote, it looks more like a violence----lest we forget the French revolution was fought about égalité--- economic equality........ReplyDelete
Ok, Invictus, 24 hours and no answer so I guess we bring this novella to a close. One final thought. Look at the crucifix in your room. Jesus sets the template -- we die so that we can rise. You remain Invictus, unconquered.ReplyDelete
Must one be wealthy to be greedy? "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" is applicable to us all. Who cares if 2% own 27%? Wealth is created; there is no set amount to be distributed.ReplyDelete
My problem is not with the wealthy. It is with the wealthy who horde their money when so many are in need. But I have an even greater problem with policies that use the force of law to take from earners to ostensibly help the "needy."
Equally odious is how the force of the law is engineered so as to take the hard worked earnings from the "needy" to give to the those same "wealthy" so legislators can pay for their campaigns. Last I heard, this was called "corruption".ReplyDelete
The heirs of capitalist fortunes seem to inherit many immoral characteristics, such as this character in the link below from the DuPont family. This is an awful testament to the inequality of justice in the US. Oh, how the judges seem to be bought and support those with wealth, back up their wealthy, even when they are pedophiles, as does the RCC USCCB. So much money going to the few who can now buy elections, buy the media and mass produce propaganda, spreading lies and creating wars.ReplyDelete
I hope that PF & PO will have some fruitful discussions. The very oppressive rise of a destructive form of capitalism is a very serious national security threat. The spin from the right winger neo-cons is threatening to the very existence of democracy and that just spells out disaster for everybody.
When we have prisons for profit, health care for profit, education for profit, housing for profit, then it is all about profit and people are just deemed as things for someone's profit. People with money can buy their children degrees, get them an expensive lawyer to get them from going to jail. The unfortunate poor, the sick, the least among us who can not profit in an increasingly greedy world where only a few profit is a world of decay and not real growth.
Those who say they follow the teachings of Jesus and are on the side of profiteers of greed are big hypocrites. I think that PF needs to address the USCCB problem of being against the very people they are supposed to serve. Instead of firing people who are gay or who support certain issues that neo-cons are against, they need to be taught how to prioritize what is truly in the interest of humanity throughout the world. End the sex slavery trade. End the usury. End the global warming. End the misogyny. End the gay bashing. End the loopholes for the wealthiest. End the ignorance. End the Obama bashing. End the coddling to the wealthiest.
Haven't heard anything about the USCCB denying Communion to Chris Christie for his abuse of power, nasty deeds & obvious lies or about denying Communion to any of the pedophile priests they harbored, or denying it from themselves for their various sins, as they deny it from those divorced and remarried. Not a peep from them. I know we'd hear about denial of Communion if Christie were not a Republican. I hope that PF will get a glimpse of these characters that were elevated in the US as politicians, Bishops and Cardinals who are not serving their constituents or the People of God.
Smarticus, it was .2% of the population that owned 27% of this countries resources in 2010. This continues to increase and is a very lopsided figure that will almost certainly cause more and more unrest in this country.. So we all should care!!!ReplyDelete
No disagreement there. Let people, all people, keep what they earn.ReplyDelete
What difference does it make to me that others have more money than me? They didn't accumulate their wealth by taking it from me, they earned it, in many cases over the course of generations. More power to them. I just hope they are generous to the truly poor and needy, and in my experience, the wealthy not only pay more via taxation, they give more to charities, most often anonymously too.ReplyDelete
Again, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth to be spread around. We don't live in a nation where some have much because others don't. Wealth is created; the wealthy earned their money. Money does not need to be distributed through arbitrary means; there isn't a money pie. There is as much pie as we can make.
In our country, if their is economic unrest, it is because of the envious.
So you would like a modern day feudal system. That will lead to unrest and a revolt of one type or another. Perhaps you do not remember what happened to Marie Antoinette. The very wealthy are exposing themselves to the envy by provoking it in the masses. Envy is always murderous in one way or another. (That is another of the capital sins that preachers seem to fail to mention.) Your economic ideas are much more greedy than not. They inspire the wealthy to continue to buy votes and ruin our democratic way of life. We are a country that once believed in one person one vote until some began to define corporations as people and further the massive greed of the corporate class. Our country has worked the best under a regulated capitalism. All the deregulation has led to much less job and educational opportunities for the masses. It has contracted the middle class and increased those in poverty and it has provided for a very wealthy .2% or feudal class. We will reap revolution, hopefully political but probably violent.ReplyDelete
So without taxes we get no roads, schools, provisions for stadiums to such people as the NFL, no personal welfare or disability, no food stamps. And without consumer protection, we get more buyer beware and more fraud on all levels. This is the country you seem to be advocating, Smarticus.... Not very smart at all.ReplyDelete
Smartuckus, in the US there are so many tax write-offs for the wealthy and you say that they didn't accumulate their wealth by taking it from others, that they earned it. The GW Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest means that those with very little wealth have to make up the difference in tax revenue & that is what truly slows an economy down due to the fact that the majority of folks are constantly squeezed to pay higher taxes.ReplyDelete
Money is distributed by way of wages and then there are the taxes. There is a need for a minimum wage because the super-rich want to get even more super-rich to satiate their gluttony for more wealth which is never enough. If there are no new jobs being created, or fewer jobs, with only those at the top of the pyramid making enormous profit it creates economic unrest and is not caused by the envious. It is caused by the greed of those at the top of the pyramid who cheat too many people from having a decent and respectable living,
If people do not have enough income to feed their families they will resort to either stealing food, earning their money illegally, or joining up with political forces that are violent & knee-jerk reactionary movements, or hopefully there will be an alternative to that of a political group that is enlightened that will work to create the circumstances for an adequate living wage and helping to put food on the table for their family, affordable housing, affordable health care for all.
"More power to them." "I just hope they are generous to the truly poor and needy…."ReplyDelete
Sorry, I hit the wrong button. The thing is, for the most part, they are not being generous to the truly poor and needy. If you want corporations to rule the world and an end to democracy, then you might say "more power to them." If you want no health care that is affordable or housing costs to continue to rise and wages to decline, continue to say "more power to them."ReplyDelete
Laws have been changed in the GW Bush years to give more power to those with all the money. They do have more power, which includes personal bankruptcy is frowned upon & eliminated while corporations can do whatever they want and get bailed out. The corporations also now are considered "people" which is totally unconstitutional, imho. This allows corporations to donate huge sums of money to political candidates who side with their economic desires which in many cases go against the interest of the majority of people.
These changes are not good for anybody except the few at the top of the pyramid. If you want that as the model with no restriction on the few to get rid of medicare, social security, food stamps, welfare, housing assistance for people in need you not only give a death sentence to many people & offer them no hope at all to relieve them of their suffering, you also allow those greedy at the top to take all that money that used to go to people in need and they'll give it to themselves to create kingdoms for themselves and slaves out of everybody else.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that Jesus would put corporation's narrow and greedy interests above the people. I know that Jesus would be against pharmaceutical companies making their prices too expensive for the sick, especially in poor countries. I also seriously doubt if Jesus would be for not giving assistance to the poor and hungry. Yet, look at the globe and all of the people who are dying from hunger. Have the wealthy changed that yet, or didn't they ignore their needs and put their own needs ahead of everybody else?
Is there any excuse for hunger in our world? What are the excuses for the wars? The excuses for US soldiers to come home to no job and losing their homes? How can we change this, Smartukus? Should we give more power to corporations that have no interest in the welfare of people or in the welfare of our environment? You really think oil companies are for our better interests? Where is all the money going that they are making hand over fist? Where are they investing? How much are they contributing to alleviate suffering in the world?
Dennis, you are spot on. I recently read that a slum lord was found shot to death. This corroborates with what you are saying here. "The very wealthy are exposing themselves to the envy by provoking it in the masses. Envy is always murderous in one way or another. "ReplyDelete
I don't know smartuckus, I think people need to get beyond the "use of the force of law to take from earners to ostensibly help the needy" and see this as a national security issue. The gap between the very rich and the 47% who are barely making it will be balanced eventually. As rdp asks, the real question is how that balance will come about. Historically it's been through revolution.ReplyDelete
We're not really 'creating' wealth anymore. Wall Street invented loan bundle packages, issued non secured credit cards by the millions, and artificially inflated asset worth like property, with the intent of using a 'future' wealth as presently available. The second target was the tax pot which is why the GOP began to insist on 'privatizing' government programs like our prison system. The gold if you will, was in Washington DC and the 50 State capitals. Very few companies are actually engaged in 'creating' wealth which why they are not creating jobs.ReplyDelete
Exactly Jamez, so how does one most effectively accomplish fleecing folks? Convince them to mortgage their future earnings and invade the tax pot collected from them by privatizing and incentivizing government programs.ReplyDelete
My daughter sent me a facebook meme the other day that made this really well. It showed the technology we used for media and communications in 1991 contrasted with the smart phone that we use in 2014 that has replaced all the multiple large things we used back in '91. It then asked a very pertinent question. Why have we made this much technological progress in one area but still drive cars based on the energy technology from over a 100 years ago? Answer: Big Oil.ReplyDelete
Lord help us - the Corporatist State - but isn't that Fascism? Sometimes it seems like we are heading towards a huge Horrific Geo Political Nervous Breakdown... Fasten your seat belts, it's gonna be a Bumpy Century!...ReplyDelete
Again, more mad claims made without evidence. Tiresome.ReplyDelete
Fidelity to the Church can lead to 'pure unethical behaviour"? The Church possesses "authoritarian thinking"? Cultish, blah, etc.
Ok, we get it. You don't like Catholicism. Move on.
Catholic myth. LOL.ReplyDelete
Please justify by reference to any catechism or any papal statement or writing by a canonist or a saint your suggestion that one can be faithful to the Church whilst rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium.ReplyDelete
A) Interesting. Where was that binding declaration of the moral imperative for the submissiveness of slaves? And for the Sun orbiting the Earth? I can't find them.ReplyDelete
B) You have still yet to scientifically overturn any Catholic teaching.
C) Just because a leadership is not always in accordance with your personal desires does not make that leadership false or arrogant.
So, if you have 'outgrown' Christian teaching, what do you call your new belief system?ReplyDelete
So now you are attacking me, but that's not what I asked you for.ReplyDelete
I asked you to defend your thesis. Please do this?
The voice is telling you things contrary to the teachings of God, ergo the voice you are listening to cannot be from or in accordance with God.ReplyDelete
Unless there is a New New Covenant? A New New Testament?
So you are just attacking me, casting unfounded aspersions on my spirituality, and waffling about cults again.ReplyDelete
Please just share your facts? The evidence for your thesis is required.
So do I correctly discern that you have now abandoned your libel that the Church teaches us to cover up child abuse?ReplyDelete
"Quotes of omniscience"? I don't even know what I'm having for dinner tonight. You're talking bollocks..ReplyDelete
I had work commitments.ReplyDelete
I've been practicing my Christian charity by letting you accuse me of libel (by definition, accusing me of lying) four times. I've responded to you with both historical and personal perspectives. You then, after 4 days and instead of any response, ask whether I have abandoned my libel. Or, in lawyer-ese, how long have I stopped beating my wife?ReplyDelete
I don't lie. In my humble opinion, you couldn't correctly discern your hat if you held it in both hands.
This, again, is not a discussion. This is you looking for some flaw to pounce on so that you can prove (as in time immemorial) that you and God and the Church are right on one side, while the unwashed and hellbound and I stand selfish and opposed. Because, in some wonderfully casuistic Arabesque of your mind, this is how God's love is shared.
My flaws are many and great, and you still miss the mark.
This is my last response. Biblically put, I am not forced to cast my pearls before swine. I will refrain from the earthier, more anatomically impossible response I'd prefer to use. God bless you, and I hope you get to meet Her sometime.
You have not yet responded with evidence, though. Evidence was what I had requested.ReplyDelete
So at least now it is clear that your wild claims against the Church are not made on the basis of evidence.
This was my intention.
Said I wasn't going to reply, but...ReplyDelete
I gave you nine different dioceses or regions where this is documented. I gave you my own life history, including nine years in service to my bishop on this exact problem. I included the history of the church, specifically Unam Sanctam. There is more.
"You have not responded with evidence, though."
The gospel Sunday said that those who say they see remain blind because they can't admit their blindness.
I'm not blind to evidence. You are simply not providing evidence.ReplyDelete
I could give you a hundred dioceses, or a thousand, in which people have committed rape and murder. That would not be evidence that the Church teaches those things.
If the Church taught those things, it would be evident in a catechism, or in some writings of the popes or saints.
Evidence. Evidence. Can it really be SO difficult..?
No, unconquered. It is you who allow these things to keep corrupting the church. It is you who is too blind to see what is right before you. Maybe you'll learn. Maybe you'll stay this obtuse.ReplyDelete
You can't seriously be suggesting that I "allow" things like child abuse. That's beyond ridiculous.ReplyDelete
And I'm blind? I didn't see any evidence not because I'm obtuse, but because you have not provided any!
Do so, and I'll have to take your claim seriously.
Matt, this comment is excellent. I didn't see this until today. For some reason my Disqus dashboard keeps attributing comments from this thread to other posts and so I had to do some investigating to find this whole series of comments.ReplyDelete
Anyway, great comment.
The Vatican did not tell laity to cover up child abuse, but they did instruct their bishops to cover up child abuse and mandated an investigation protocol which included testimony under Pontifical silence--with it's mandatory excommunication--for witnesses and participants.ReplyDelete
Now that I've found this discussion, I thought I'd just jump right in again.
Well, perhaps you are substituting the word 'teaches' for what the rest of us see as officially 'instituted'. Crimens Solicitationes was most definitely a mandated protocol for a cover up. It wasn't taught, it was demanded from bishops under their vow of obedience. In my mind this is worse than 'teaching'.ReplyDelete
You've never asked me for evidence. You've just repeatedly stated I have refused to see the Truth in the circular logic of magisterial self referencing.ReplyDelete
Here's one where modern science forced at least a modicum of change in reasoning about Church teaching. Masturbation was considered evil because it was believed that men's sperm contained all that was necessary for a human life. Men just 'planted' that seed in the fertile soil of a woman's womb. To spill sperm elsewhere was to waste life and was immoral.
We now know that women provide half the genetic equation and all the cellular mitochondria and that sperm does not contain a human life by itself. That did not change the official teaching that masturbation was a sin, but it did reduce the moral culpability and change the reasoning for why masturbation must remain sinful....at least beyond the 'we've always taught and can't be wrong' kind of reasoning. Now they have to rely on the pleasure principle which in it's own way is even worse than the original wrong understanding based on an erroneous understanding for the transmission of life because it emphasizes the Jansenist side of things. Sex must be bad because it feels so good, especially if you do it by yourself.
Glad to see you on the page, Coleen. I'm not sure I have anything else to say. As I said below, I'm truly dumbfounded by the answers. Reminds me of Monty Python -- "Come back and fight, you coward. It's only a flesh wound."ReplyDelete
It's an account I've seen made before, though usually in anti-Catholic resources. It may still be credible though, of course. Could you point us to the evidence perhaps?ReplyDelete
I'm not in a position of authority, and I've never seen or suspected any abuses (except liturgical ones) on which I could blow the whistle, so no - I'm NOT perpetuating abuse in the Church.ReplyDelete
And, again, if you cannot provide evidence for your claim that the Church teaches us to cover up abuses, please would you retract it?
I'm not in a position of authority, and I've not yet witnessed or suspected any abuses (liturgical excepted) on which I could have blown the whistle, so no - I am NOT allowing any abuses in the Church.ReplyDelete
So if you still cannot give evidence for your claim that the Church teaches us to cover up clerixal sexual abuse, would you please retract it?
Crimen Sollicitationis is the Vatican directive that I'm referencing. If a victim went to the Church first, this came into play and silenced all parties to the accusation with the penalty of excommunication for violation of the secrecy protocol. Obviously, if an abuse victim went to secular authorities first, CS did not come into play as far as the victim was concerned. Unfortunately, going to secular authorities, or even being advised to go to secular authorities is a post 2002 phenomenon. Previous to the Boston expose victims sought to redress these issues through the Church and CS played a big part in keeping the lid on the abuse issues.ReplyDelete
The Murphy report issued by the Irish government explains how this impacted abuse allegations in Ireland. Wiki actually has a very even handed presentation of this document.
So, no evidence. We get it. Just take back your claim?ReplyDelete
That is a false understanding of Crimen Sollicitationis however. There is nothing in that document which teaches the covering up of clerical abuse. On the contrary, it directs the process by which the Church judges accused and punishes guilty clerg, leaving no room for a guilty person to go unpunished.ReplyDelete
That is quite the opposite thing to letting clergy get away with sexual abuse.
It most definitely wasn't though, if you read it. It clearly makes punishment of guilty priests compulsory, which is a long way from a cover-up.ReplyDelete
Sigh. Ok, unconquered, I'll try again. Forget the multiple places around the world where this has happened, the hierarchical lies documented by grand juries in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and most recently Australia. Let's forget the reporting done in Boston, New Orleans, Albuquerque, and Ireland. Let's forget the reports that continue from Minneapolis - St Paul and Milwaukee. No evidence at all.ReplyDelete
Let's assume that your take on Crimen Solicitationes is correct. Why this wonderful document was hidden, I don't know. Perhaps in Christian charity. So why, if all the rapes are being reported to the good Cardinal soon to be pope, does he say on the record that the abuse problem occurs only in the USA? When he becomes Pope Benedict, he immediately sanctions Maciel. Was this new evidence after John Paul died? Or did Pope soon to be Saint John Paul allow him to continue the abuses reported to him for decades? But, no evidence.
Let's ignore the concept of a church able to grow and change, because admitting that indeed compromises your faithful worldview. You know no one who has been abused and no abusers, flying in the face of statistics but ok, ignore that. I know priest abusers, and I know victims. I was surprised with the evidence on some that I thought were wonderful people, both conservative and liberal stylists. Nothing proven there, even though my bishop trusted me with the evidence. There are stories I won't tell, because I made an oath.
Let's get down to basics. I told you that I was abused, and that my diocese covered it over. My abuser was about 17 years in on an over 30 year course of rape that my church knew about and stood by, however mistaken they were. You called me a liar 4 times, and now twice you've said "Just take it back." I'd love to. I won't lie.
Yes, unconquered, it is your attitude that your worldview trumps all of this (you said above that you'd only believe if a pope had written it) that allows abusers to continue. And yes, you know both abusers and abused. I wonder why they don't share their lives with you?
You said, "we get it.' I'm assuming you have a mouse in your pocket, and both of you are willfully blind. You don't get it. Maybe someday.
Yes, let's get down to basics. Real basics.ReplyDelete
1. You said the Church teaches us to cover up clerical sexual abuse.
2. I said it didn't, and asked for evidence.
3. You provided no evidence, but refused to retract (1).
Let's be clear.
>A document outlining the way abusive priests must be punished is not evidence for teaching to cover up abuse.
>An instance of abuse is not evidence for teaching to cover up abuse.
>An instance of cover up is not evidence for teaching to cover up abuse.
-An instruction to cover up abuse, found in the Catechism, in the Bible, in any statement or document of the Magisterium, or any statement made by any pope, or any saint, WOULD be evidence of instruction to cover up.
Provide, or retract.
Tiresome strawman argument. My quote from above:ReplyDelete
As to "rejecting the signposts", I can only say that my Catholic church taught me well enough that I've been able to reject supposed signposts when evil ensues. Things like, "Keeping this priest confecting the Eucharist is so important that you should keep quiet when he sexually abuses children." Now I think that distills my experience, replicated in every diocese and documented as listed above, fairly succinctly. You have spent the last eleven days focused on that one phrase, stating that I said the church "taught" this. As if a papal encyclical proves it is real, and no papal encyclical proves it is not. As if we, the people of God, are not responsible for cleaning up this whole mess. As if that proved that I was against the church.
Crimen Sol says that the church will handle priest abusers internally. Did they? See the above documented proof that they did not.
An instance of abuse is awful. 30 years of abuse by one man, sent to multiple places , victims cowed into silence -- worse. That's my one story. 35 abusers in my small diocese. Every diocese has these stories. Documented.
You've seized on this one strawman and said it proves my lack of faith and my lack of truth. It makes for bitter comedy. You don't know what you are doing, and you don't care who gets hurt.
I have provided, and there is nothing to retract.
Awesome article. I really enjoyed it. I looking for your next post. Happy daysReplyDelete
new york legal aid society