|
Comment moderation has been turned off.
|
|
I see. Because sin sometimes has ongoing effects after it has been forgiven, our mission as Christians is to dredge up repented sins and display them for public view. Very Orwellian, Bill. |
|
I see. Because sin sometimes has ongoing effects after it has been forgiven, our mission as Christians is to dredge up repented sins and display them for public view. Very Orwellian, Bill. |
|
Stubborn boy, Mark. You refuse to deal with the facts of this case which were a professor preying upon a student and getting fired for it. This is now part of the public record. This was a newspaper reporting on this individual, and this came to light. Now, just because he's one of your conservative buddies doesn't mean he should get special treatment from the press. This is part of the consequences of what he did, consequences that he'll never outrun. You choose to adopt a Protestant view of the matter at hand. Too bad. |
|
Stubborn boy, Mark. You refuse to deal with the facts of this case which were a professor preying upon a student and getting fired for it. This is now part of the public record. This was a newspaper reporting on this individual, and this came to light. Now, just because he's one of your conservative buddies doesn't mean he should get special treatment from the press. This is part of the consequences of what he did, consequences that he'll never outrun. You choose to adopt a Protestant view of the matter at hand. Too bad. |
|
I think there's some distance between "dredging up repented sins" and "object lessons" which I suspect is all that's being suggested here. I think it's possible in the case of Deal Hudson to for some sinfully relish in the downfall of another and yet it is also possible for some to draw some object lessons without detraction or lack of charity. Reading the various blog posts convinces me that some are relishing and some are flatly rejecting the object lesson being offered. Both are mistakes. |
|
I think there's some distance between "dredging up repented sins" and "object lessons" which I suspect is all that's being suggested here. I think it's possible in the case of Deal Hudson to for some sinfully relish in the downfall of another and yet it is also possible for some to draw some object lessons without detraction or lack of charity. Reading the various blog posts convinces me that some are relishing and some are flatly rejecting the object lesson being offered. Both are mistakes. |
|
Bear in mind that my part in this discussion was started by Shea's theological claim that no person can mention a sin that has been forgiven in confession, that to do so is a "satanic ... violation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation"--what is confessed and absolved is never again to be brought up. I am showing the groundless nature of that position, both on the basis of cause/effect and Catholic teaching on what the sacrament forgives--and what it doesn't. |
|
Bear in mind that my part in this discussion was started by Shea's theological claim that no person can mention a sin that has been forgiven in confession, that to do so is a "satanic ... violation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation"--what is confessed and absolved is never again to be brought up. I am showing the groundless nature of that position, both on the basis of cause/effect and Catholic teaching on what the sacrament forgives--and what it doesn't. |
|
Hudson is not my buddy. Never was. Don't know the guy. Don't hold a brief for him. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that temporal consequences for sin are a reality. I'm also aware that appointing ourselves the Inflictor of Temporal Consequences is a dangerous game. |
|
Hudson is not my buddy. Never was. Don't know the guy. Don't hold a brief for him. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that temporal consequences for sin are a reality. I'm also aware that appointing ourselves the Inflictor of Temporal Consequences is a dangerous game. |
|
"Shea's theological claim that no person can mention a sin that has been forgiven in confession" is non-existent, given that the NT mentions the sin of St. Peter rather prominently despite the fact that is was most assuredly forgiven. My point is not that no sin mentioned in confession can ever be spoken of. It is that deliberately dredging up somebody's sins (about which nobody needed to know but the parties involved) is called "detraction" and it doesn't stop being detraction by being re-labeled "news". |
|
"Shea's theological claim that no person can mention a sin that has been forgiven in confession" is non-existent, given that the NT mentions the sin of St. Peter rather prominently despite the fact that is was most assuredly forgiven. My point is not that no sin mentioned in confession can ever be spoken of. It is that deliberately dredging up somebody's sins (about which nobody needed to know but the parties involved) is called "detraction" and it doesn't stop being detraction by being re-labeled "news". |
|
Again, a Protestant, individualistic perspective. Sin affects the body; that's clear in this case. That's why it lost him his job, which is a public act. |
|
Again, a Protestant, individualistic perspective. Sin affects the body; that's clear in this case. That's why it lost him his job, which is a public act. |
|
Are you really suggesting that solidarity means that we have the right to expose somebody's long atoned for sins when they don't concern us, Bill? Which of your old sins "affect the body" and need to be publicized? |
|
Are you really suggesting that solidarity means that we have the right to expose somebody's long atoned for sins when they don't concern us, Bill? Which of your old sins "affect the body" and need to be publicized? |
|
We are dealing with a man in the public view who made a habit of exposing the sins of others. A journalist doing an article about him found that even his conservative friends had some things to say about his past. You seem to keep forgetting that. |
|
We are dealing with a man in the public view who made a habit of exposing the sins of others. A journalist doing an article about him found that even his conservative friends had some things to say about his past. You seem to keep forgetting that. |
|
You didn't answer my question, Bill. Are you seriously suggesting the solidarity means that we are free to expose the long-repented sins of others? |
|
You didn't answer my question, Bill. Are you seriously suggesting the solidarity means that we are free to expose the long-repented sins of others? |
|
The missing key here is the phrase "...and he's still doing it." Had NCR made that case, you would have heard nothing from me on this matter. But they didn't. They just exposed old sin to destroy the guy. So I think Tom from Disputations was right: journalistic ethics and Catholic ethics are not necessarily co-terminous. |
|
The missing key here is the phrase "...and he's still doing it." Had NCR made that case, you would have heard nothing from me on this matter. But they didn't. They just exposed old sin to destroy the guy. So I think Tom from Disputations was right: journalistic ethics and Catholic ethics are not necessarily co-terminous. |
|
So, staying "focused" I continue to be amazed that you could somehow interpret the theology of the sacrament of reconciliation to mean "Temporal punishment for forgiven sin is real therefore it is just fine for us to appoint ourselves as Agents of Temporal Punishment for forgiven sin--for the sake of the Body of Christ." |
|
So, staying "focused" I continue to be amazed that you could somehow interpret the theology of the sacrament of reconciliation to mean "Temporal punishment for forgiven sin is real therefore it is just fine for us to appoint ourselves as Agents of Temporal Punishment for forgiven sin--for the sake of the Body of Christ." |
|
You're the one who is slinging cheap ad hominems. |
|
You're the one who is slinging cheap ad hominems. |
|
A Catholic does not, and should not, intend to be such an instrument of punishment; a Catholic can (and I suggest should) interpret life in that light--accepting all of life's crosses and offering them up, and understanding that it is one's sins that got one into the position. There is a difference--surely you can see that? And Catholics should and must look at themselves and take a warning from it. |
|
A Catholic does not, and should not, intend to be such an instrument of punishment; a Catholic can (and I suggest should) interpret life in that light--accepting all of life's crosses and offering them up, and understanding that it is one's sins that got one into the position. There is a difference--surely you can see that? And Catholics should and must look at themselves and take a warning from it. |
|
Of course, I agree that a Catholic should see life in that way. If I had Hudson's ear (which I don't) I would tell him pretty much what you've said: "Don't go around telling people how to be a real Catholic if you don't want to have people look at how you've lived." If he were foolish enough to suppose that his actions should have no consequences, I'd remind him of the fact of temporal punishment. But as I've said repeatedly, the fact that temporal punishment is real does not mean we have a license to mete it out. |
|
Of course, I agree that a Catholic should see life in that way. If I had Hudson's ear (which I don't) I would tell him pretty much what you've said: "Don't go around telling people how to be a real Catholic if you don't want to have people look at how you've lived." If he were foolish enough to suppose that his actions should have no consequences, I'd remind him of the fact of temporal punishment. But as I've said repeatedly, the fact that temporal punishment is real does not mean we have a license to mete it out. |
|
(*&#(& character limit! |
|
(*&#(& character limit! |
|
You are misrepresenting me. |
|
You are misrepresenting me. |
|
"You state in the article that forgiveness means not having to deal with the consequences any longer". |
|
"You state in the article that forgiveness means not having to deal with the consequences any longer". |
|
As I've already said, when the NCR piece came out, there was no assertion in the piece that Hudson's sins were ongoing. The piece said he sinned--and lost his job. In contrast, Dupre (and numerous other clerical abusers) have sinned (assuming the charges are true) and did not lose his job or suffer any other consequence. |
|
As I've already said, when the NCR piece came out, there was no assertion in the piece that Hudson's sins were ongoing. The piece said he sinned--and lost his job. In contrast, Dupre (and numerous other clerical abusers) have sinned (assuming the charges are true) and did not lose his job or suffer any other consequence. |
|
I was content when Weakland stepped down. If he finds something useful to do with his time (and, of course, doesn't keep on abusing the trust people put in him) I'm not going to demand that he be kicked out of the next job he turns his hand to. Why? He's already paid once. |
|
I was content when Weakland stepped down. If he finds something useful to do with his time (and, of course, doesn't keep on abusing the trust people put in him) I'm not going to demand that he be kicked out of the next job he turns his hand to. Why? He's already paid once. |
|
"Public shame isn't just directed towards embarrassing the sinner--it's a warning to others." |
|
"Public shame isn't just directed towards embarrassing the sinner--it's a warning to others." |
|
SAM, I do tend to think that the journalists at NCR (in distinction to the editorial staff) do a decent job of reporting (e.g., John Allen). The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible. I know of some egregious examples of imbalance and false reporting on their part that they never corrected. If a paper ever needed to read the Catechism about detraction ... |
|
SAM, I do tend to think that the journalists at NCR (in distinction to the editorial staff) do a decent job of reporting (e.g., John Allen). The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible. I know of some egregious examples of imbalance and false reporting on their part that they never corrected. If a paper ever needed to read the Catechism about detraction ... |
|
Yet Mark, under the standard you have set if someone does a profile of Weakland ten years from now and mentions why he was forced from office, it will be a sin against the Sacrament of Reconciliation. |
|
Yet Mark, under the standard you have set if someone does a profile of Weakland ten years from now and mentions why he was forced from office, it will be a sin against the Sacrament of Reconciliation. |
|
Uh, Bill. The circumstances of Weakland's resignation are public knowledge. I *would* be critical if, ten years from now, a Weakland who has committed no further sins were hounded from some productive work he was doing by self-appointed Inquisitors who decided, in your words, that "This is part of the consequences of what he did, consequences that he'll never outrun". I was unaware that the Holy Spirit was a harpy. |
|
Uh, Bill. The circumstances of Weakland's resignation are public knowledge. I *would* be critical if, ten years from now, a Weakland who has committed no further sins were hounded from some productive work he was doing by self-appointed Inquisitors who decided, in your words, that "This is part of the consequences of what he did, consequences that he'll never outrun". I was unaware that the Holy Spirit was a harpy. |
|
And this is deliberate falsification of my position. You have chosen not to defend your position; that's unfortunate. |
|
And this is deliberate falsification of my position. You have chosen not to defend your position; that's unfortunate. |
|
NCRep *doesn't* have an axe to grind? We aren't reading the same paper, evidently. The glee and detail with which Feuerherd presented the Hudson story says otherwise. Not to mention Tom Roberts' attempted justification for it. That, and it's pretty hard to imagine the Rep doing a breathless expose' on the two-faced career of Kerry adviser Robert Drinan, S.J. |
|
NCRep *doesn't* have an axe to grind? We aren't reading the same paper, evidently. The glee and detail with which Feuerherd presented the Hudson story says otherwise. Not to mention Tom Roberts' attempted justification for it. That, and it's pretty hard to imagine the Rep doing a breathless expose' on the two-faced career of Kerry adviser Robert Drinan, S.J. |
|
Peace, Mark. |
|
Peace, Mark. |
|
"The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible." |
|
"The Wanderer, on the other hand, simply has an axe to grind and I do not see that its reporting is credible." |
|
Actually, Weakland's transgression was two-fold: affair, then payment from the faithful's funds. The latter half was fairly recent--the $450K payment being in 1997, IIRC. That was the greater and more scandalous of the sins, ultimately. |
|
Actually, Weakland's transgression was two-fold: affair, then payment from the faithful's funds. The latter half was fairly recent--the $450K payment being in 1997, IIRC. That was the greater and more scandalous of the sins, ultimately. |
Commenting by HaloScan.com |
