We don't have to be physically nailed to a cross to realize the resurrection. We do need to surrender.
On Dec 2, 2:01 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we know we can't get inside another's head - though some act > as though they can. I'm amazed at what others have claimed about what > I think. We do have statistics as some kind of guide. This is > largely ignored as people don't understand what they mean. We convict > on DNA evidence that the chances of anyone sharing the same profile > are millions to one. This should not translate as man wearing RC > priests skirts = paedophile, though it does in the innuendo jokes. In > fact most people are not good at critical reason - one reason we have > so many rules in our legal systems. Rigsby is about right until his > ending. > We draw a lot of lines to have society. We can't have creatives and > holy cow-men excusing breach. Gandhi is sadly a case in point. If we > take Rigsby at face value we should be no more surprised that our > daughters lose their 'virtue' (mine would laugh) to a priest rather > than casting director. I generally see a bit more in priests. The > key issue is that we do have to give up some freedoms to > administrative control or nothing works - this is not as true now as > it once was as we could have much more open sharing of information. > Molly is fine trying to tell us of the wonders of her visions; but how > different is this from some nurd telling us to find the reasons in > faith for killing Muslims (vice versa ad nauseum)? Gandhi wanted to > help us all by sleeping with young children in a state of abstinence. > The correct way is to find a cross and nail yourself to it. > Rationalisation is a horrible thing. We should have no truck with it. > > On 2 Dec, 16:40, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The system will protect itself versus the those of an individual- > > that's universal. Perhaps the vow of chastity enlarges the scowl but I > > fail to see the sins of the RCC as any different from the casting > > couch, incest, rape as a reward of conquest, the cabin boy, the sex > > slave trade, etc. The upshot is that the RCC lost a great deal of > > respect, money and valuable real estate plus now has a rep for > > attracting derelicts into Holy Orders- nuns were considered spinsters. > > Read Chaucer (let off a rape charge- thank heavens, for the sake of > > the English language!) > > > On Dec 2, 9:01 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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- 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.
