| BookTalk.org News |
| Have you ordered your copy of our next books? |
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
DWill 
Masters
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 481
Gender: 
Location: Berryville, Virginia
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Pope Benedict visit
|
 |
|
This is something I bring up with caution, because I hold no brief for the Roman Catholic Church. Benedict's visit made me think about the values espoused by the church, and one aspect of these values interests me.
We have our current divide between liberal and conservative values. We can list, on the conservative side: anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, support for capital punishment, anti-environmentalism, pro-free trade and capitalism, "family values", religious belief tending toward fundamentalism, and there are others.
On the liberal side: pro homosexuality, pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, environmentalism, regulation instead free trade, more permissive regarding sex, religious moderation or agnosticism/atheism.
The church's values would be: anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, restraints on capitalism, regard for the environment,
decreased sexualization, and (of course) religious orthodoxy.
In other words, the church, although probably most often seen as conservative, can't be pinned down as either conservative or liberal, as these labels are reckoned today.
I don't have a conclusion to draw from this. It's just an attempt at an observation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ophelia
Embodiment of Reason
Silver Contributor
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 1267
Gender: 
Location: France
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Will,
I think you forget one small detail: the list of liberal vs conservative elements you make are true of the US!
The Catholic Church is not an American institution.
It is conservative in its own way, which does not include capital punishment.
It started from very dogmatic to a little more enlightened now, all seen from Rome.
I only heard part of the speech the Pope made in San Francisco.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he spoke so clearly about the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests in the US. I did not expect him to be so outspoken about it.
The next step-- which would be the hardest for the Catholic Church, but in my view the most significant, would be to condemn the hierarchy that had known about those priests for years and protected them, simply moving them from parish to parish when there was a scandal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lawrence
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 113
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: The Pope
|
|
|
Dear Ophelia and Dwill,
I know you both were kind enough to read at my essay. That said, I am bewildered that I did not communicate to you that we, as a society, can no longer permit pompos, prideful, spiritual leaders to participate in the regulation of our society. Dwill, there is no conservative/liberal perspectives on the issues you listed. The issue is simply does the government choose to exercise its power to regulate human behavior on that issue in the manner they write the law. There can be no moral, ethical, or spiritual justification by the government oligarchy of their action. Government doesn't have to justify any law. The collusion of government and gods throughout history is what the essay was about. Is it that poorly written you didn't understand or did my presentation simply not persuade you to my conclusion? Lawrenceindestin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip
Sophomore
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 297
Gender:
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Ophelia wrote: |
| The next step-- which would be the hardest for the Catholic Church, but in my view the most significant, would be to condemn the hierarchy that had known about those priests for years and protected them, simply moving them from parish to parish when there was a scandal. |
Please read Christopher Hitchins' excellent article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23562057-7583,00.ht ml in which he states
"why is the Vatican continuing to shelter cardinal Bernard Law?
It will be remembered that Law resigned his position as head of the Archdiocese of Boston in late 2002. He had little alternative. A series of lawsuits and depositions and disclosures had established beyond doubt that, as my Slate colleague Dahlia Lithwick phrased it, "Law was not only aware of egregious sexual misconduct among his subordinates but was apparently engaged in elaborate efforts to cover up incident after incident of child rape". (I pause to praise her for employing that latter term instead of the grubby all-purpose euphemism, abuse.) To be specific, the cardinal admitted in a deposition that he knew priest John Geoghan had raped at least seven boys in 1984 before he approved Geoghan's transfer to another parish where other boys were at risk.
Further disclosures revealed that priest Paul Shanley, who at one point was facing trial for 10 counts of child rape and six counts of indecent assault and battery, had been moved from ministry to ministry in what amounted to an attempt to protect him.
Law lied to a west coast bishop about Shanley's history and certified in writing that another rapist priest, Redmond Raux, had "nothing in his background" to make him "unsuitable to work with children".
A vast majority of Americans told the polls at that stage that they favoured prosecution of any clerics who had knowingly failed to act on the exposure of child rape in the church.
In certain jurisdictions it nearly did come to that, but in Massachusetts, as Lithwick dryly pointed out, there was no mandatory reporting law. In other words, a person with information about child rape was not obliged to come forward with the facts. Or that, at least, was the shame-faced excuse of the Massachusetts district attorney.
However, suppressing information about a crime can also be a crime, and Law and seven of his bishops were at one stage subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury.
The whole question became moot after his resignation because Law thereupon abruptly moved to Rome and took up a series of positions in the Vatican. He resigned only as head of the Boston archdiocese he had so gravely outraged and was allowed to retain his cardinal's hat.
He was appointed as archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and made a member of the congregations of Oriental Churches, Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelisation of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, and Bishops, as well as the Pontifical Council for the Family. He took a full part in the conclave that selected Ratzinger as the successor to John Paul II.
So I think that we are entitled to hear, as the vicar of Christ and holder of the Keys of Peter favours Americans with his presence, whether he regards his brother Law as an honoured guest in the holy city or as someone who has been given asylum.
And even if we cannot get a satisfactory answer, it is essential that we hear the question. Will the press do its job and will our elected representatives remember their responsibilities to so many thousands of tortured and exploited children? Some of us will be watching and keeping an account. " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Masters
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 481
Gender:
Location: Berryville, Virginia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Pope
|
|
|
| lawrenceindestin wrote: |
| Dwill, there is no conservative/liberal perspectives on the issues you listed. The issue is simply does the government choose to exercise its power to regulate human behavior on that issue in the manner they write the law. There can be no moral, ethical, or spiritual justification by the government oligarchy of their action. |
Lawrenceindestin,
I'm sorry, I thought I followed you most of the way in your essay, but I'm not able to see the point you're making here. It might be the mixture of government and spiritual leaders that has me puzzled. Maybe my point (such as it was) was unclear as well. I can't see why you say there is no liberal/conservative difference on a range of issues in this country. Perhaps I should return to your essay. Could you cite a particular part of it that you think is most relevant to your point?
DWill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lawrence
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 113
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: Response to DWill
|
|
|
I've thought of a metaphor for what is happening between us. My essay is at the fourth level below the surface in a coal mine saying the timbers are rotten and this sucker is coming down. You and Ophelia are on the surfsce saying I don't think the ground should shake, or maybe it would be alright if it shook over there but not here.
| Quote: |
We have our current divide between liberal and conservative values. We can list, on the conservative side: anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, support for capital punishment, anti-environmentalism, pro-free trade and capitalism, "family values", religious belief tending toward fundamentalism, and there are others.
|
That homosexuality is judged by modern people as negative conduct is the result of the spiritual determination (Jewish 3,000 years ago), that the only reason for marriage is the procreation of children. Sexual intercourse not with a woman was condemned, not because it was inherantly wrong, but because between males it could not produce children. Lesbian behavior was not condemned until the 20th century because no one cared enough about women to worry about how they had a sexual orgasm.
Abortion, dito. Does life begin at conception, quickening, or birth. It has only been judged by religion based on their dogma.
Capital punishment. Organized religion certifies it is OK to kill in the interest of the State. Religion certifies War, Capital punishment etc. The state needs no excuse to justify why it kills. It has the power and that is all it needs.
The issues you describe can be redacted as liberal or conservative but only on the bases of some supposed, illdefined or not defined, moral basis. There can be no moral basis without a dogma about a god. If you can keep posting to me, maybe I can speak in words folks can hear. Thank you, Lawrence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saffron
Masters
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 460
Gender:
Location: Purcellville, VA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
lawrenceindestin & dwill,
Sounds like apples and oranges to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
President Camacho
Sophomore
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 257
Gender:
Location: Miami, Fl
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: does anyone read the subject
|
|
|
DWill,
This is interesting and I really appreciate such an intriguing post.
Republicans aren’t for pro free-trade. You may be thinking of the foreign policy that politicians try to push with the name “free-trade” in them. That is hardly the case though, as I’m sure you know. The subsidies that republicans and democrats (mostly reps) put in place make any free-trade impossible. Agricultural subsidies number in the billions and are the reason that so many Mexican farmers went out of business when NAFTA was enacted. 10% of their entire corn industry in Mexico went under when this happened. This means farmers, workers, those that produced pesticides, maintained farm equipment, etc. They all went out of work. This led to an increase in illegal immigrants entering the U.S., as I’m sure you can imagine.
As far as republicans being anti-homosexual… they are about as anti-homosexual as the church is. I think you know what I mean by that. Say one thing, DO another (guy).
If I had to pick the catholic church being anywhere, it is near the core of the republican party. This archaic institution is at home in the republican camp because they don’t believe in evolution, provide massive protection for wrong-doers, and don’t believe in abortion. The religious stigma is enough by itself.
When I think of powerful religious homosexuals, I think of republican politicians and clergymen, to be honest. Doesn’t everyone? I bet you can name some politicians I’m thinking about. These guys are supposed to be our leaders and REPRESENTATIVES.
Lawrence, please send me a decoder ring for your post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lawrence
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 113
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: decoder ring
|
|
|
Mr. President,
I would if I could send you a decoder ring. What I'm trying to say is in my essay on my blog here at booktalk lawrencdindestin. If you don't get it there, I guess you aren't going to get it. Doestoesky (sp) in the Brother Keramosov made it clear he believed the responsibility for communication rested with the speaker (writer) and I agree. I say this that you may know I know the fault is with me that you do not understand. There is no fault in you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
President Camacho
Sophomore
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 257
Gender:
Location: Miami, Fl
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I can't believe I wrote that Lawrence. Please excuse me. Sometimes I have a couple drinks and say things that I otherwise wouldn't.
Your last paragraph still has me a little confused though. You say that there can be no moral basis without a dogma about a god... I don't understand. Without religion there are no morals?
And what of ethics? I'm curious to know what came first and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
