I think that this is much to the point of what is "true", Francis. Because we are not in the head or heart of Murray, Moriarty etc., we cannot know if they are acting on what they know to be true, justifying their position with what they think can cover up what is true, or formulating a relative truth based on personality disorder. Because we can see the destructive results of the actions of these priests, those that abused children and those that abused public trust, we feel they cannot be true to what we know as loving behavior. They may be true examples of how viewpoints limited to selfish and material aspects also have limited experience of absolute truths. Unfortunately, these are the folks that we expect to lead us in our spiritual journeys if we are Roman Catholic, yet they cannot really, because they are so limited they have no real experience of the unity consciousness that Christ leads us into. If they really believe that they acted correctly, they have not yet found the intrinsic moral system that leads to truthful action, (When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own authority. Instead, I speak only what the Father has taught me.) This cannot include following orders from the Vatican that allow harm to others.
Understanding what others find to be "true" necessitates understanding their viewpoint and arrival at the truth. Each state and stage of consciousness represents a different viewpoint. Some of those viewpoints are survival level, self serving, and far from universal. On Dec 2, 9:14 am, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 Dez., 13:48, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I felt the deep, abiding, heart pang while reading Francis' post. It > > reminded me of the movie the Mission, with Robert De Niro, which I > > think beautifully portrayed the moral conflict of decent men in the RC > > church that are following instruction of authority. The fact that the > > story of Francis involves children makes the damage unimaginable in > > terms of shattered lives. Knowing some of the people involved, > > whether they were pedophiles or simply turned away from the truth of > > the terrible acts, must make that guilt we all feel about the > > injustice we cannot influence all the more real. In the end, we can > > only do what we are called to do in the moment, and give voice > > immediately to what we find true. The Logos is more powerful than we > > can imagine. There is limitless humility in that part of us that > > connects us all brings us to the reckoning that we cannot judge if we > > are to accept ourselves in the whole of mankind, and the god within. > > Perhaps slightly off topic, but as a reaction to your post, Molly, a > small example, of what you describe as as "do[ing] what we are called > to do in the moment and giv[ing] voice immediately to what we find > true..." I posted this elsewhere on the web, on the blog of an Irish > friend of mine who has reasons to be more immediately concerned with > what is going on in the Irish Catholic Church. It concerns the bishops > whose handling of paedophile abuse was criticized specifically by the > commission: > > "Men like Murray, Moriarty, et al. - and I would include Des Connell > in this group - are, most probably, very sure that they acted > correctly, acording to their own lights. For them, their loyalty to > the institutional church is genuinely primary. The Catholic Church, > including indivisibly its institutional component, is the infallible > voice of God on earth. They serve it, and that is their whole > justification. > > Des Connell taught me philosophy at UCD and I feel I know a bit about > what makes him tick. He can use the artifice of the "mental > reservation" and believe that this is morally correct, because he can > justify it in the edifice of scholastic theology, the truth of which > he is convinced. For this reason he can simultaneously be horrified at > the abuse of children by churchmen, and at the same time subjugate it > to the supremacy of his duty, as he sees it, to serve the church and > protect it from harm. > > Donal Murray seems to think similarly. If I understand his reaction to > the criticism of him in the Murphy report correctly, he wants to wait > for feedback from the priests and people of his diocese. If he gets > the impression they think he should resign, he may even do so. > > But both Connell and Murray, as well as the others, have got it > basically wrong. This is not a question of their responsibility to the > Church, or their obedience to the pope (I'm expecting that there will > be smokescreens raised about the so-called Holy Father not accepting > some offered resignations), or their own theological justifications. > It is a question of their moral responsibility to the victims of the > abusers. > > As a result of their positions, they were faced with difficult but > ultimately clear moral decisions and they chose wrongly. All the > extenuating arguments regarding damage to the church, loyalty to the > pope, the prospect of horrifying scandals do not change this (and the > truth - at least some of it - has come out anyway). > > It happened on their watch and they let the victims down. No > theological arguments, no opinions of the priests and laity of the > Limerick diocese, no wishes of the pope can change this. And this is > why Murray and the others must resign and Connell must go much further > than he has in terms of unreserved apology. Apart from any > considerations of the victims and their feelings, it is a question of > their own moral integrity. In this sense, to use the terminology they > (not I) would use, it's a question of saving their own souls. > > I fear most of them do not seem capable of discovering the basic > backbone within themselves to save themselves morally - spiritually, > if you like. And this is, perhaps, the most damning judgement of all > on the system which produced them, formed them and which they have > served. > > I am relieved and glad not to be in any way associated with that > system any more. And, at the same time (thinking also of my idealistic > young self who entered the Dominican Order 32 years ago and spent nine > fruitful and formative years there) saddened that the institutional > Catholic Church has so managed to corrupt and pervert what was, > potentially, a beautiful ideal." > > With regard to the Vatican and the pope, Lee, the silence has - up to > now - been deafening. Worse, requests for Vatican co-operation from > the investigating commission, through the papal nunciature in Dublin, > were ignored because, according to the Vatican, "they were not > submitted through proper diplomatic channels." Diplomatic protocol > apparently stipulates that such requests should have come through > official government channels. Words simply fail me to express what I > think of this position. > > Francis -- 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.
