Pa. Monsignor Get 3-6 Years

[clem456]

Catholic theology says that this may diminish or eliminate culpablity. Abortion is an inexact comparison because it is an objective mortal sin.

I see, so then in your view planned parenthood and Catholic pro choice politicians bear no responsibility for the proliferation of abortion. Ok, the logic doesn’t hold any water, but at least I know where you are coming from.

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.shtml

It may be that people here are not so much making excuses as trying to abide by Catholic moral teaching.

Here is some specific moral teaching from the Catechism section you referenced:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by **not disclosing or not hindering them **when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

Yes I agree 100%. The key word here is -can-. Your position then is that some priests and bishops and Church lawyers, whose extensive spiritual training and education focus on the moral and spiritual aspects of life, can claim unintentional ignarance. That assertion strains credulity past the limit of common sense and reason.

 

[pnewton]

I see, so then in your view…

I was not giving my view, but rather quoting Catholic teaching. You mention abortion. You do know, do you not, that the Catholic Church allowed a Catholic funeral for Ted Kennedy. I will not say if this was right or wrong, only that it was in line with Catholic teaching.

Yes I agree 100%. The key word here is -can-. Your position then is that some priests and bishops and Church lawyers, whose extensive spiritual training and education focus on the moral and spiritual aspects of life, can claim unintentional ignarance. That assertion strains credulity past the limit of common sense and reason.

An appeal to common sense is not valid where disagreement exists. It is a form of false authority. The issue strains *your *credulity, not mine, but then I try to follow the admonition of Jesus to be slow to judgement. While the bishops may have extensive spiritual training, this does not necessarily make them more learned in areas of psychology, or necessarily good administrator.

Incidently, it is usually not helpful to tell others what they think, or attempt to put words in their mouth. Paraphrasic the views of others in a negative light does little good. In this case, I do not have an opinion one way or another, as I have too little real information.

 

[clem456]

I was not giving my view, but rather quoting Catholic teaching. You mention abortion. You do know, do you not, that the Catholic Church allowed a Catholic funeral for Ted Kennedy. I will not say if this was right or wrong, only that it was in line with Catholic teaching.

It seems to me you gave a viewpoint. I quoted specific teaching in response.

If we could refocus: Ted Kennedy’s judgement before God is not my business and slighty off topic. The question is: In light of your distinction between abortion and other evil acts like child molestation (or cooperating in it)…I can only assume that you do not believe, or that you do not believe the Church would hold that, Planned Parenthood and pro-life politicians bear responsibility for, as the Catechism directly says, ““cooperating in the sin”” of abortion. If I am wrong on that please let me know.

An appeal to common sense is not valid where disagreement exists. It is a form of false authority. The issue strains *your *credulity, not mine, but then I try to follow the admonition of Jesus to be slow to judgement. While the bishops may have extensive spiritual training, this does not necessarily make them more learned in areas of psychology, or necessarily good administrator.

It is a huge stretch of common sense to believe that Church officials are justified in using the “just taking orders” or “everyone did it this way” defense. It strains the God given sense, common sense, the sense held by any moral thinking person. This is not being judgemental, this is attempting to use the good judgement(there is a huge difference) that we as Catholics are called to cultivate and employ.

Incidently, it is usually not helpful to tell others what they think, or attempt to put words in their mouth. Paraphrasic the views of others in a negative light does little good. In this case, I do not have an opinion one way or another, as I have too little real information.

Not so incidentally, it is good to know where you and some other posters specifically stand on an issue of morality that affects how people view the Church, whether they should like to stay members or become members, whether they trust the leadership and are willing to give obedience to it. Some degree of specificity is required. I thought I asked some direct and fair questions trying to get some clarity.

My own brother is at odds with the Church he was raised in over this issue. In 1964 at age 14 a priest in the seminary he attended committed a crime against him. He wanted to be a priest at one point in his youth. Now he does not trust Church leadership or authority, not because he does not believe in authority or cannot acknowlege the human fallibility of leadership, but because of the continued evasion of responsibility for evil acts, such as we are discussing right here on a public forum. But, I suppose his sense of outrage could be said to be misplaced, and that may be correct, but that doesn’t lessen the responsibilities at all.

 

[pnewton]

IIt is a huge stretch of common sense to believe that Church officials are justified in using the “just taking orders” or “everyone did it this way” defense.

I do not think the first is a good defense, but I do not see anyone in the Church trying that. The second one is a little more complicated. The issue is not that everyone treated sex offenders this way or that, but rather the current understanding of sex offenders was deficient. Giving people electroshock because everyone does it that way is not valid today, but it was valid when this was thought to be helpful.

That being said, I think your post was coherent and balanced. This is a complicated issue and there are many sides to it. I do not know enough for a strong opinion, but from my point of view, I look mainly at the legal culpability involved in the sentencing. In the justice system, level of culpability matters a great deal.

 

[clem456]

I do not think the first is a good defense, but I do not see anyone in the Church trying that. The second one is a little more complicated. The issue is not that everyone treated sex offenders this way or that, but rather the current understanding of sex offenders was deficient. Giving people electroshock because everyone does it that way is not valid today, but it was valid when this was thought to be helpful.

That being said, I think your post was coherent and balanced. This is a complicated issue and there are many sides to it. I do not know enough for a strong opinion, but from my point of view, I look mainly at the legal culpability involved in the sentencing. In the justice system, level of culpability matters a great deal.

Ok, I am attaching some unfounded motivations to you or assuming by extension that you hold some commonly held positions that you do not. If you are coming at it through the lense you describe I apologize for expanding this into something you were not addressing. I apologize for my contentiousness.