Yet you don’t KNOW that; you can feel what you want.How can you say this with only this one topic to speak of where I criticize the Church.
I actually am inclined to defend the Church in most situations, but I felt it was clear what the church was doing in this instance.
Putting aside the adversarial, counter-productive, and uncharitable behavior that’s wasted 50% of this thread, I’ll ask you a simple question:I actually am inclined to defend the Church in most situations, but I felt it was clear what the church was doing in this instance.
**You seem to refuse to accept the heart of the matter:There really isn’t anything that we can know for absolute certainty, just because it is a secular source does not mean it is automatically wrong. If there are any falsehoods in the article please point them out.
Glad you decided to address the topic -Putting aside the adversarial, counter-productive, and uncharitable behavior that’s wasted 50% of this thread, I’ll ask you a simple question:
Why do you believe this to be clear?
**Even the article in question does not provide any evidence to support the idea that the Bishop Kiet did not retire for the reason he gave: poor health.
I’ll admit, the presentation by the article-writer that removing Kiet removed a “stumbling block” makes an unsubstantiated implication.** It might be true that the government harbors a personal grudge or have issues with losing face specific to Bishop Kiet as an individual. However, if it is about the Church in Vietnam’s subservience to the despots then no stumbling block will be removed. Pope Benedict nor any bishop he installs will quietly defer to the immoral abuses of the Vietnamese government. They may forgive, but they won’t forget nor should we expect them to turn a blind eye to oppression.
- Marty Lund
Your constant use of unsuitable and worthless attacks does not help to solve issues.Glad you decided to address the topic -
rather than make unsuitable and worthless attacks.
How very nice - and surprising too.
Considering you already claimed there was nothing left to say half a thread ago. I won’t be surprised when you come back trying to put words into people’s mouths and treat them uncharitably for “being uncharitable” yet again.Good bye for now, fellas.
It makes perfect sense that he was a stumbling block so in the interest of “diplomatic relations” he was asked to step down. He really could not have stepped down without a legitimate excuse or it would crush the Catholic spirit in Vietnam. It makes sense that the Vatican would do this hoping this will be an improvement for Catholics by appeasing the Vietnamese government and possibly opening the door for better treatment for them.Putting aside the adversarial, counter-productive, and uncharitable behavior that’s wasted 50% of this thread, I’ll ask you a simple question:
Why do you believe this to be clear?
Even the article in question does not provide any evidence to support the idea that the Bishop Kiet did not retire for the reason he gave: poor health.
I’ll admit, the presentation by the article-writer that removing Kiet removed a “stumbling block” makes an unsubstantiated implication. It might be true that the government harbors a personal grudge or have issues with losing face specific to Bishop Kiet as an individual. However, if it is about the Church in Vietnam’s subservience to the despots then no stumbling block will be removed. Pope Benedict nor any bishop he installs will quietly defer to the immoral abuses of the Vietnamese government. They may forgive, but they won’t forget nor should we expect them to turn a blind eye to oppression.
- Marty Lund
There are definitely more, Joan of Arc being the most famous case.For this specific case there is no evidence to suggest the claim to be true. It’s rampant speculation and conspiracy theory backed up with no evidence at all.
The idea of the Church crucifying saints, however, is not unprecedented at all. Bishop Pierre Cauchon is great historical example of the Church (in the person of a Bishop) killing a saint in a political machination. Despite burning at the stake not being a crucifixion I think this is way closer to concrete literalism than the obvious metaphor requires.
- Marty Lund
That’s all nice and rationally constructed. All good theories (conspiracy or otherwise) are rationally constructed. The problem with them is that they lack proof.It makes perfect sense that he was a stumbling block so in the interest of “diplomatic relations” he was asked to step down. He really could not have stepped down without a legitimate excuse or it would crush the Catholic spirit in Vietnam. It makes sense that the Vatican would do this hoping this will be an improvement for Catholics by appeasing the Vietnamese government and possibly opening the door for better treatment for them.
The stretch is the part where you get from point 0 to the actual starting point of your rational construct without evidence.I don’t think I am making a stretch here, if you disagree then that is your opinion.
I’ll disagree with you until you provide me with any evidence that your premise (the Church removed Bishop Kiet for a reason other than his health) is actually true.Sorry, this is how I see it and is clear as day to me. Disagree all you want.
Well I do like to reiterate a point when it becomes clear it’s NOT been understood.Your constant use of unsuitable and worthless attacks does not help to solve issues.
Considering you already claimed there was nothing left to say half a thread ago. I won’t be surprised when you come back trying to put words into people’s mouths and treat them uncharitably for “being uncharitable” yet again.
- Marty Lund
So you did get my point - after you dropped the sarcasm.That’s all nice and rationally constructed. All good theories (conspiracy or otherwise) are rationally constructed. The problem with them is that they lack proof.
The stretch is the part where you get from point 0 to the actual starting point of your rational construct without evidence.
I’ll disagree with you until you provide me with any evidence that your premise (the Church removed Bishop Kiet for a reason other than his health) is actually true.
Without that evidence your theory is a non-starter.
- Marty Lund
There is a big, long swathe of territory to be covered between “unsubstantiated speculation,” “suspicion,” and “valid conclusion.”We often have to make opinions based on a reconstruction of a scenario and probability without cold hard facts and our own intuition even if it is not foolproof. If I am shown to be wrong I will issue a mea culpa. It is perfectly reasonable to have a different opinion than what I have reached.
That would explain why your “arguments” that clog up half the thread remind me so much of a 10-year old with a his first drum set.Well I do like to reiterate a point when it becomes clear it’s NOT been understood.
No harm in that. No harm in you doing your pot/kettle thing again either. It’s you, for sure.
As for “constant” use of insults - that’s how you entered this thread. Recall that? No???
When folks bring bitterness to threads, it’s like a clanging cymbal.
I’m sorry but the contradiction in what you wrote remains a contradition. Please do not expect others to understand what you “mean”. It is far better to say what you mean clearly.There is no contradiction there, what I mean by “all of the time” is frequently, not in every decision. When someone says “all of the time” they usually don’t mean always but a common occurrence.
Fine - Now we have one area in which they “messed up”. considering the vast numbers of decisions that must be amde in a given year, this is a far cry from being wrong, “all (meaning frequently??) the time”.I will never have all the information about the sex abuse scandal either but I certainly know enough to confidently say they messed up big time.
I am not aware of what the holy Father said about socialism, but I’m sure he said more than the soundbite you have given here. Socialism, which is basically an economic system, can be as good or as bad as communism or capitalism depending on those who run it. If those who run it, hate religion then religion is the enemy of socialism. If those who run it do not hate religion then religion is not the enemy of socialism.Mind you I never mentioned the Holy Father at all, I said the Vatican which is a huge network of bureaucrats.
But the Holy father is not above criticism either, when he said socialism was good, I believe he was in error given that socialism’s greatest enemy is religion. It was a pretty big error which helps to embolden radicals.
We are not asked to support the Church or even the Holy Father in all of its decisions, and some of its poor decisions are very grave indeed.
I don’t believe that I have said, or intimated that you are horrible. If I have, I apologize.My opinion, but if you see otherwise then fine but don’t suggest I am somehow horrible for not being blindly supportive of things that I am not required to and should not be.
I can well understand this.Maybe I am too cynical, happens from being disappointed in religious leaders on a regular basis. I probably should be more cautious with my comments.
Very well stated.I can well understand this.
I struggle too with many things and tend toward the cynical.
But what I have learned over many years and after several sensative and painful operations to remove my foot from my mouth is that one needs to be very careful about interpreting events until more of the facts are known. I have learned that it is better to speak only to the known facts, and leave “speculation” alone.
I have found it best to just pray for those who are charged with dealing with a particular issue, especially when I am in no way involved - This archbishop is a good case in point. Neither one of us is involved. Neither of us (I assume) has ever met this man, or the people in the Vatican who are charged with dealing with this matter. Neither are we briefed on the particulars of the situation. Nor are we privy to any plans that the Vatican might have. For these reasons, my first post on this thread was one of prayerful hope that the Vatican will do what is best in the long run.
Peace
James
Because those concordats worked out so well for all concerned… I don’t see the possibility of defending the 1933 Concordat with Hitler, since it ultimately failed to protect Catholics, broke the back of the Catholic Center Party, which was the last pillar against Hitler, and made it look permissible for Catholics to support fascism. Its possible to try and say that Pius XI screwed up in good faith, but the concordat with Germany was a total disaster and nothing for anybody to be proud of (except maybe Hitler, who had successfully manipulated the Vatican and knew that if he ever really needed to, he could violate its provisions, which he ultimately did).There is no such thing as a free concordat between the Holy See and a tough dictatorship. There is always a price to be paid for the greater good and the protection of Catholics.
Although I am strongly anti-communist and I admire that Bishop, if his resignation is the price to pay for Catholics having more rights and protection, then it needs to be paid. Pope Pius XI himself said that he would negotiate with the devil himself to ensure the protection of Catholics. After all, in negotiating the Lateran Pacts of 1929 with Fascist Italy he had to sacrifice the Catholic Popular Party and in negotiating the 1933 Reichskoncordat with Nazi Germany which gave legal redress by the Church in case of Nazi persecution of the Church, he had to sacrifice the Catholic Central Party.
If B16 manages a concordat with Vietnam and pays a visit there, then this will be one of the great diplomatic triumphs of his pontificate!