I too have been following this story and I am eagely awaiting the Popes response, he must respond surley?
On 1 Dec, 18:02, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > On the subject of lying and attitudes to the truth, an interesting, > obscene twist came to light in Ireland last week. > > For those who haven't been following the story, Ireland has been > rocked in recent times by continuing revelations concerning paedophile > abuse by Catholic priests and brothers. Last week, a judicial > commission finally published a report on what was going on in the > archdiocese of Dublin. The report makes clear that diocesan > authorities systematically worked to cover-up cases of abuse over > decades, often simply transferring priestly abusers to new parishes > and jobs, giving them continued access to children, not informing > anyone of potential dangers, misleading the judicial authorities and > police on the (sadly rare) occasions when questions were asked, etc. > It's something I've been following closely, given the fact that I am > Irish (although no longer living in Ireland) and was a member of a > religious order (and based in the Dublin archdiocese) for many years > in the 70s and 80s. I have been forced to come to terms with the > realisation that I knew, and regarded myself as a friend of some men > who have since been convicted of truly hideous, manipulative abuse > (including one who chose suicide in preference to prosecution). > > Reading the report has been a profoundly depressing, at times > sickening experience. > > But to get back to the point: A former archbishop, Desmond Connell, > explained to the commission, the - for him - legitimate concept of > "mental reservation." The following is taken from an Irish Times > article: > > '...Cardinal Desmond Connell ... explained the concept to the > commission as follows: > > “Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are > not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a > position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in > which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person > who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it > may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that > would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with > extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations > where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. > Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So mental > reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without > lying.”'http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1126/breaking86.htm > > The article goes on to describe some of the horrifying results of such > casuistical moral hair-splitting. > > I happen to know Connell somewhat, as he was Professor of Metaphysics > at University College Dublin when I studied philosophy there - indeed, > he was my tutor for a semester. He was/is, in my view, a very > intelligent man, in possession of an excellent philosophical mind > within the confines of the strigent, limited confines of the very > traditional scholastic Thomistic philosophy which he espouses. He is a > sincere, devout man, very other-worldly, who was completely happy in > his peculiar academic ivory tower and was probably deeply upset when > John Paul II appointed him archbishop of Dublin in 1988. To be fair to > him, he was also the first archbishop of Dublin to begin to face up > (however incompletely and reservedly) to the problem of clerical abuse > of children. > > In the wake of the commission's report, the idea of "mental > reservation" makes me sick to my stomach. > > Francis > > On 1 Dez., 05:03, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lying is treated to a great deal of academic complexity. It would be > > good if we had ways to know people are lying in Aristotle's classic > > sense. In the end, I don't think we are much good at knowing when we > > do it ourselves. I have tried, over a long period, to 'lack > > credibility' to see if I could find out more about how people are > > 'conned' by this and also to see if there is a way to teach that isn't > > about persuading people to your own view but to create enquiring > > minds. As this latter is one of the aims of education I accept, I am, > > of course, breaching my own principle to some degree, but I do bring > > this to the table for examination. > > I agree with pretty much everything in this thread so far. I had a > > morning like Lee's - the sacked dinner lady being almost a classic > > example of how we are going wrong. Of course, we have a 'whistle- > > blowers Act' which has turned out to be so much toilet paper. We have > > a human rights Act and this is so perversely vague we only know what > > it means after a bunch of dud lawyers and judges have had their fill > > from the pork barrel. Now we have another toothless enquiry into the > > Iraq invasion which is essentially telling us the previous, costly > > ones were duds. Orn's long lists could be applied to almost any > > politician. Chomsky indeed lights a few beacons. Relying on > > subjective notions of truth is circular and bound to be because > > individuals can lie and wider, collective issues are not addressed. > > We know, like Rigsby, there is much wrong and worry about tinkering. > > We know something of Alan's ontological liar, but also of Slip's > > demagogue and demislave in politics (another thread). It may be that > > art is the lie that tells us the truth, but 'art' is also a form of > > commerce. The Great Masters, on taking an apprentice, would assure > > the parents they could turn a camel into an artist. Much teaching, > > even in universities is child minding. > > I almost flip into the belief a bunch of alien lizards is running the > > show. The metaphor isn't bad, but disappointingly ripping their faces > > off does not provide empirical proof - though One can ponder the > > 'satisfaction'! > > I would guess the real truth in global warming lies somewhere in the > > metaphor of Nero fiddling as Rome burns. The truth in history seems > > to be that we cling more precariously to this rock than we will admit > > and don't do as much as we could about the self-destruction built into > > evolution. We could have knowledge built on an understanding of big > > facts, yet we easily follow big myths to disgusting conclusion. Over > > 20 years, my research methods classes have always reached a point > > where they have to tell me that the truth is little other than a > > suicide note at work (not in a manner too distant from Lee's dinner > > lady). I have to agree. Away from class I may well have been at > > academic-practitioner conferences, demonstrating with others just how > > bent statistics are and how this is nothing new (a classic paper is > > dated 1910). Statistics is a very old world meaning 'facts about the > > State' and not related other than by 'magic' to the scientific, > > arithmetic and mechanical stuff that tells us about atoms. We teach > > about frequency distribution, ogives, means and so on, but really > > teach the construction of spreadsheets and presentations - and > > hopefully about accessing information and demonstrating that you can > > find much said on almost any topic. Orn would be a great asset - pity > > I diced his brain in an experiment in another thread! Chris would be > > great on global warming, as would the putting forward of almost any of > > our views to the scrutiny of how we hold them. > > This latter point of putting forward views to scrutiny is where my > > interests lie. The magic wand of statistical enquiry can help here, > > but usually doesn't because it remains magic without proper > > explanation and scrutiny itself. A classic dodge is repeated over and > > over. This is about polling people who wouldn't really know what is > > going on, in order to evade the real sample. We ask, for instance, a > > representative sample of the country's population for their views on > > police and police complaints. We ignore the real sample - here those > > who actually have dealings with police and police complaints - and > > don't ask people how they have come to their views. In the sample of > > the whole population, people may have formed their views by watching > > television police shows, both fictional and on the street. In short, > > the hard work is not done and we don't really try to find out the > > extent to which ideology (such as Orn refers to) and fictions form the > > protocols of belief. > > I tend to think there is 'truth in the mess' and that if we could get > > to it we could change for the better. This simple statement evades > > politics and this is why I think we need something that includes a > > better politics. At this point, we stray a long way from the > > pressures I know former students now working in ONS, businesses and > > the public sector are under to produce convenient truth. They know > > they are lying, but generally justify this in an acceptance of a dirty > > world and the need to keep the wolf from the door. > > > Imagining half a book of argument, I end up believing our professional > > classes let us all down. We live in an ideological mess and need to > > recognise both this and the dangers of a thrusting desire for a > > simpler situation (whatever tends us towards listening to the current > > Nazis). We have made truth too hard to establish, but have to avoid > > living under a new regime of truth. We want (as an example) our cops > > to be able to come down hard on scum and not get buried under red tape > > and fear of complaints. Yet we also believe actions by officials and > > businesses should be open to public scrutiny by anyone they let down. > > But we don't want this scrutiny to drive our systems to inertia. I > > believe we could use a technology of fair scrutiny to produce a > > working simplexity. I hear no real public talk about this. I fear > > that the subjective model of truth (of the virtuous person) leaves us > > with cretins like Bush and Blair telling us they are virtuous and can > > make their peace with god. > > > On 30 Nov, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
