Too Broad an Interpretation/Declaration of Submission

[pianistclare]

We are speaking here about “judicial policies”. Are there scenarios you envisage where the Church would betray its higher principles were it to accede to the requirements of the law in such matters?

What comes to mind is the sheer horror(to every true Catholic) of the thought that an Institute would implement policies for the common good, by the use of documents for that purpose that it knows or suspects are overwhelmingly tainted. Given some measure of human error, a very small proportion of it we could assume to be. The disposition of the Justice system now tells us that is unlikely. Only when we receive reasonable truth that we can believe it, and can now use it’s criminal record file has a bonafide document. If this is true, then I expect the Church to at least remain consistent in principle, and broadly apply it and use the same policy as it does to clergy that are charged, that is, withhold/isolate it’s/their use until it can verify that integrity. If the Church truly loves my 5 grandchildren under 10, then I trust it would. I expect the same expression of love shown by Her for my grandchildren and other people’s grandchildren when they are adults as well. My grandchildren were raised that all people of God be treated with dignity and respect.

Before promulgating this update, it knew of this travesty within the civil ministry. The work of esteemed Catholic Sr. Helen Prejean(Dead Man Walking) is well known in the diocese. It invited her to talk about her apostolate and books about the prison ministries of Canada and the US. I attended that talk. Nowhere did the Church follow up on her visit and announced an action to the reports it just received at that time, and nowhere did the government in response to a public request by her, state it would allow the Church to monitor the clean up of that system.

injusticebusters.org/05/Prejean_Sr_Helen.shtml

Must be a problem where you live.
Whens he came to several parishes here, it made the news, the Archbishop spoke, and the visits and talks given were WIDELY publicized.
We all went.

 

[djames99]

I admit that I fail my Brothers in my attempt to duplicate the rage of “reactive justice” we recognize throughout history, that same rage that had the mothers of France put their knitting down to take a seat to entertain themselves by the guillotine’s work of truncating the life of some other mother’s child.

As it applies to today’s abuse cases, some of those charged with the job of teaching and reliable in the best of times, are now occupied with priorities of appeasement to public demand and it’s accompanying compounding effects of placing irrelevant importance on the secular necessity to retain honor among men and avoiding aspersions and others. They affect pre trial opinion negatively for the defense and are out of place. While the devil has these running around occupied, those of us students still able to discern will need to wait or seek the clear headed teachers.

Until then, I will remain cautious. I found there is a bent in this teaching community to become selective and purposeful when choosing encyclicals that deal with public appeasement in judicial matters. There is no attempt to put the encyclical in context by joining it with it’s inseparable partners stored in that vast library of truths. For instance, an encyclical that expresses sentiments about a moment of trial and justice, should have accompanied with it one of mercy(Y.O.M?), as well as those that deal with fraternal conduct.

We should notice a balance and perspective in all teachings. Words by the teachers should be carefully chosen and convey wholesomeness in these decades of separation. In 1 Cor we note in that fledgling community those who have gone astray are assured they are missed by their community who are anxious to return their rights and place. We read of parables of great celebrations on their return from a life of sin. Their ‘criminal record file’ we note only resides in the cabinet of the offender’s conscience. (We note Paul himself makes admission to his “murderous” past. The bent to have this past thrown at him at every turn by the community is not the norm.)

In a similar way, in oral communication we note this same context is also missing. We note conclusions in their sentences no longer have qualification, and some students will be left to form their own conclusions. The teacher may be speaking about a particular individual, or state of individual, but their words figuratively point a finger, and he becomes THE ‘evil’. How many years now have we tried to instill hope in those unfortunates caught in the sin of active HS, that they are not to identify with the sin?. They are not THE sin. Is it coincidental that the HS act is accepted by this generation but doesn’t warrant the same finger.? Political correctness perhaps?

I close now with a reference to the National Catholic Review and a comment by canon lawyer Rev. Kevin E. McKenna on the latest version of Essential Norms:

americamagazine.org/issue/401/article/dallas-charter-and-due-process

Thanks for all the opinions.