The Church is once again forced to face up to what it has recently allowed itself to become. There is no conclusion possible but that much of the hierarchy did more than look away from evil, but actively embraced it.
12 comments:
Tom
said...
It's shocking news, really, especially after the Boston scandals. I'd heard a lot about what the Catholic Church did to remedy those past failures, so this new report makes me doubt all of that.
On the other hand, Jesus hand-picked 12 followers, and one of them betrayed him to his death. No excuse, of course, but perspective, maybe.
Just as a linguistic note, is "hanged" the right verb for crucifixion? It undoubtedly is for a hanging, but I'd think "was crucified" would be the preferred verb, no?
It's a good question. My understanding is that "hanged" is appropriate for executions, and "hung" for all other kinds of hanging. This is an execution, but not a hanging by the neck; it's a hanging by the arms. So I think "hanged" is right, but I can see an argument that Jesus was "hung" on the cross, rather than "hanged" on it.
Personally, I draw a distinction between The Church as an institution of a faith and the men who run the Church. For me, the Church hasn't failed; it's the men who run it who have.
As to remedying past failures, all they did was try to tighten their men-who-run-the-church protection procedures; there was no effort at all made to purge the miscreants and to better identify in advance those who would misbehave.
Is it too much to ask for the whole lot of them, along with all those who protected them, to be formally and permanently excommunicated, in addition to whatever the secular authorities do?
I'm guessing yes, based on what the Church has done for them so far. (Or 'the men who run the Church,' in Mr. Hines' formulation; but, in any case, they do in fact run it.)
"Personally, I draw a distinction between The Church as an institution of a faith and the men who run the Church. For me, the Church hasn't failed; it's the men who run it who have."
Indeed, and of course any institution built by mankind (of any significant size) will hold all the evils of men as well as the good. The deeper problem here is the actions of the bishops.
"...there was no effort at all made to purge the miscreants and to better identify in advance those who would misbehave."
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere. I can't find even one plausible argument. Holding them within close range of temptations they've already shown themselves weak to is sinful itself, if you ask me. I'd suspect also that some of these men also abused the sanctity of the confessional to protect themselves. I'd think an argument could be made that doing so forfeits that sanctity, and there should be some review of canon law to see if that's the case or if it could be.
To be entirely fair, here is a critique of the Grand Jury report and the media coverage of it, by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue. It think it has some major tone issues, but may also be making some fair points.
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere.
Here's one. They don't belong in cloister. They belong in Rykers, if Pennsylvania can work a deal with New York. If not, there are any number of disused coal mines that would make suitable gaol.
I'm guessing yes, based on what the Church has done for them so far. (Or 'the men who run the Church,' in Mr. Hines' formulation; but, in any case, they do in fact run it.)
I suppose permanent excommunication would fall outside of what the Church would go along with even were it not corrupt, on account of it being meant as a medicinal measure rather than simply a punitive one. Although, given the scope of the sins in question, I expect that demonstrating real contrition would be nigh-impossible.
I suppose the accused could confess to everything on the stand, and request to serve the maximum possible sentence(s), consecutively, in general population. If granted, that might be suitable evidence of atonement.
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere.
Here's one. They don't belong in cloister. They belong in Rykers, if Pennsylvania can work a deal with New York. If not, there are any number of disused coal mines that would make suitable gaol.
The one in Centralia, perhaps? The one that's more or less permanently on fire? That seems appropriate.
I was thinking in terms of earlier in the process, and rather than the shuffle that they were doing....
How much earlier? The first act fatally tarnishes them as far as I'm concerned.
The one in Centralia, perhaps? The one that's more or less permanently on fire? That seems appropriate.
I'd be down with that, so long as they were put close, but not fatally so, to the burning. It's necessary for them to live through the process--for a good long time--in order for them to serve their punishment in this world.
The Church of Lucifer is not all that unknown to those in the know. After all, the Inquisition wasn't started by the Amish I can assure you of that.
People belonging to the Church of Rome have my sympathies. In the same fashion that people living in rape capital South Africa and starvation North Korea have my sympathies. They are cogs in the machine and matrix.
Humanity creates their reality by refusing to kill evil when they see it.
Read Windswept House for a good insider look at why the Vatican is the Vatican and why the Vicar of Christ is the Pontifex Maximus and why pedos and Luciferians run the place. Nothing like a good old Catholic priest exorcist telling a straight story and entertaining to boot.
12 comments:
It's shocking news, really, especially after the Boston scandals. I'd heard a lot about what the Catholic Church did to remedy those past failures, so this new report makes me doubt all of that.
On the other hand, Jesus hand-picked 12 followers, and one of them betrayed him to his death. No excuse, of course, but perspective, maybe.
Just as a linguistic note, is "hanged" the right verb for crucifixion? It undoubtedly is for a hanging, but I'd think "was crucified" would be the preferred verb, no?
It's a good question. My understanding is that "hanged" is appropriate for executions, and "hung" for all other kinds of hanging. This is an execution, but not a hanging by the neck; it's a hanging by the arms. So I think "hanged" is right, but I can see an argument that Jesus was "hung" on the cross, rather than "hanged" on it.
Personally, I draw a distinction between The Church as an institution of a faith and the men who run the Church. For me, the Church hasn't failed; it's the men who run it who have.
As to remedying past failures, all they did was try to tighten their men-who-run-the-church protection procedures; there was no effort at all made to purge the miscreants and to better identify in advance those who would misbehave.
Eric Hines
Is it too much to ask for the whole lot of them, along with all those who protected them, to be formally and permanently excommunicated, in addition to whatever the secular authorities do?
I'm guessing yes, based on what the Church has done for them so far. (Or 'the men who run the Church,' in Mr. Hines' formulation; but, in any case, they do in fact run it.)
"Personally, I draw a distinction between The Church as an institution of a faith and the men who run the Church. For me, the Church hasn't failed; it's the men who run it who have."
Indeed, and of course any institution built by mankind (of any significant size) will hold all the evils of men as well as the good. The deeper problem here is the actions of the bishops.
"...there was no effort at all made to purge the miscreants and to better identify in advance those who would misbehave."
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere. I can't find even one plausible argument. Holding them within close range of temptations they've already shown themselves weak to is sinful itself, if you ask me.
I'd suspect also that some of these men also abused the sanctity of the confessional to protect themselves. I'd think an argument could be made that doing so forfeits that sanctity, and there should be some review of canon law to see if that's the case or if it could be.
To be entirely fair, here is a critique of the Grand Jury report and the media coverage of it, by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue. It think it has some major tone issues, but may also be making some fair points.
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere.
Here's one. They don't belong in cloister. They belong in Rykers, if Pennsylvania can work a deal with New York. If not, there are any number of disused coal mines that would make suitable gaol.
Eric Hines
Well, yeah, but I was thinking in terms of earlier in the process, and rather than the shuffle that they were doing, which was idiotic.
I'm guessing yes, based on what the Church has done for them so far. (Or 'the men who run the Church,' in Mr. Hines' formulation; but, in any case, they do in fact run it.)
I suppose permanent excommunication would fall outside of what the Church would go along with even were it not corrupt, on account of it being meant as a medicinal measure rather than simply a punitive one. Although, given the scope of the sins in question, I expect that demonstrating real contrition would be nigh-impossible.
I suppose the accused could confess to everything on the stand, and request to serve the maximum possible sentence(s), consecutively, in general population. If granted, that might be suitable evidence of atonement.
I'd love to hear from someone the argument against sending these men off to cloister somewhere.
Here's one. They don't belong in cloister. They belong in Rykers, if Pennsylvania can work a deal with New York. If not, there are any number of disused coal mines that would make suitable gaol.
The one in Centralia, perhaps? The one that's more or less permanently on fire? That seems appropriate.
I was thinking in terms of earlier in the process, and rather than the shuffle that they were doing....
How much earlier? The first act fatally tarnishes them as far as I'm concerned.
The one in Centralia, perhaps? The one that's more or less permanently on fire? That seems appropriate.
I'd be down with that, so long as they were put close, but not fatally so, to the burning. It's necessary for them to live through the process--for a good long time--in order for them to serve their punishment in this world.
Eric Hines
The Church of Lucifer is not all that unknown to those in the know. After all, the Inquisition wasn't started by the Amish I can assure you of that.
People belonging to the Church of Rome have my sympathies. In the same fashion that people living in rape capital South Africa and starvation North Korea have my sympathies. They are cogs in the machine and matrix.
Humanity creates their reality by refusing to kill evil when they see it.
Read Windswept House for a good insider look at why the Vatican is the Vatican and why the Vicar of Christ is the Pontifex Maximus and why pedos and Luciferians run the place. Nothing like a good old Catholic priest exorcist telling a straight story and entertaining to boot.
Post a Comment