The Murphy Report

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really believe that simply urging "the dioceses to ensure proper compensation" constitutes some sort of fulfillment of "a moral obligation to do the right thing and make sure that restitution is made"?

From MSNBC October 18, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33374255/

[quote]The Diocese of Wilmington is the seventh U.S. Catholic diocese t ...[text shortened]... have such reverence for such a blatantly twisted and corrupt institution is beyond me.[/b]

No; I don't think Rome should pay for compensation. I doubt it even has the money even if selling off its own property.

How you can continue to have such reverence for such a blatantly twisted and corrupt institution is beyond me.

Because I have seen the good that the Church does and have the most profound respect for it. I see that some have abused their positions of authority but this does not seem sufficient for me to condemn the entire institution.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse.

I never said it did. Try reading my post again.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I never said it did. Try reading my post again.

Conversation over. If you feel you have been misrepresented, then explain why. I refuse to read your post again.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; I don't think Rome should pay for compensation. I doubt it even has the money even if selling off its own property.

[b]How you can continue to have such reverence for such a blatantly twisted and corrupt institution is beyond me.

Because I have seen the good that the Church does and have the most profound respect for it. I see that some have ...[text shortened]... itions of authority but this does not seem sufficient for me to condemn the entire institution.[/b]

Rome should not only pay it, but if it were to liquidate their assets and came up short, they should be aggrieved that they could do no more. Perhaps you're comfortable with the institution because you similarly lack moral fiber. It's called taking responsibility. Perhaps you'll learn to do this if you mature. That the Church still hasn't matured after centuries says a lot.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Conversation over. If you feel you have been misrepresented, then explain why. I refuse to read your post again.

Because I neither said nor implied that "mental reservation [gives] a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse".

That you childishly refuse to even reread to post to see if this is true, shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Because I neither said nor implied that "mental reservation [gives] a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse".

That you childishly refuse to even reread to post to see if this is true, shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Maybe you should re-read my post because I never accused you of saying that. Gosh you really are a hypocrite. Obviously you do not believe that mental reservation gives any moral justification since you believe mental reservations to be a lie. What I am saying and what I have been saying since my first post is that mental reservation cannot be used, even by Catholics who accept the morality of a mental reservation, as an excuse for cover-ups. So whether mental reservations are morally justified is an irrelevance. It just doesn't apply to this situation. As I said some time ago, I really do not see why this argument matters.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Maybe you re-read my post because I never accused you of saying that. Gosh you really are a hypocrite. Obviously you do not believe that mental reservation gives any moral justification since you believe it to be a lie. What I am saying and what I have been saying since my first post is that mental reservation cannot be used, even by Catholics ...[text shortened]... ified is an irrelevance. As I said some time ago, I really do not see why this argument matters.

This is what you wrote:
"You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse."

All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between your explicit comment about me with the sentence that follows being an explanation of your comment. If you intended them to be taken as two completely independent thoughts, you should have made this clear. Evidently you only intended a childish comment with no explanation. There is no hypocrisy.

What you seem to continue to fail to realize is that the entire concept of "mental reservation" is a way of trying to dress up a lie much as a child would. The only practical reason for having such a concept is to be able to deceive with a clear conscience which evidently the Catholic clergy is more than willing to do. The authors of the report are able to see this, the victims of sexual abuse are able to see this, it seems only you are unable to see it for what it is.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is what you wrote:
"You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse."

All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between your explicit comment about me with the sentence that follows being an explanation of your comment. If you intended them to be taken as two complet of sexual abuse are able to see this, it seems only you are unable to see it for what it is.

All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between your explicit comment about me with the sentence that follows being an explanation of your comment. If you intended them to be taken as two completely independent thoughts, you should have made this clear. Evidently you only intended a childish comment with no explanation. There is no hypocrisy.

I don't get it. You misunderstood me. I have explained what I meant, so exactly what the hell is the problem?

What you seem to continue to fail to realize is that the entire concept of "mental reservation" is a way of trying to dress up a lie much as a child would. The only practical reason for having such a concept is to be able to deceive with a clear conscience which evidently the Catholic clergy is more than willing to do. The authors of the report are able to see this, the victims of sexual abuse are able to see this, it seems only you are unable to see it for what it is.

This is precisely what I am complaining about. You're not even reading my posts. You have no idea what I am even arguing. You really are off in lala land.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between your explicit comment about me with the sentence that follows being an explanation of your comment. If you intended them to be taken as two completely independent thoughts, you should have made this clear. Evidently you only intended a childish comment with no explanation. There is no hypocrisy. reading my posts. You have no idea what I am even arguing. You really are off in lala land.

[/b]I don't get it. You misunderstood me. I have explained what I meant, so exactly what the hell is the problem?

You made an false accusation by calling me a hypocrite. Is it okay for someone to defend against false accusations?

This is precisely what I mean. You're not even reading my posts. You have no idea what I am even arguing. You really are off in lala land.

Go back and reread our posts. I've been addressing a specific point from your original post which was false. You're the one who seems to have lost the thread.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't get it. You misunderstood me. I have explained what I meant, so exactly what the hell is the problem?

You made an false accusation by calling me a hypocrite. Is it okay for someone to defend against false accusations?

This is precisely what I mean. You're not even reading my posts. You have no idea what I am even arguing. Y t from your original post which was false. You're the one who seems to have lost the thread.

You made an false accusation by calling me a hypocrite. Is it okay for someone to defend against false accusations?

You accused me of saying that you thought that mental reservation is a justification for cover-ups. I never said nor implied anything of the sort; you put words in my mouth.

Go back and reread our posts. I've been addressing a specific point from your original post which was false. You're the one who seems to have lost the thread.

My point this whole time has been that the first example of John and the parish priest is not considered a morally justified use of mental reservation and that the second example of the cardinal equivocating is not even a mental reservation. You, however, have attacked the concept of mental reservation itself. As I have said several times since, this is quite irrelevant if a mental reservation is not actually applicable, if the cover-ups are not actually instances of mental reservations. I believe that mental reservations can be justified, so long as they do not entail deception, but this is totally irrelevant.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You made an false accusation by calling me a hypocrite. Is it okay for someone to defend against false accusations?

You accused me of saying that you thought that mental reservation is a justification for cover-ups. I never said nor implied anything of the sort; you put words in my mouth.

Go back and reread our posts. I've been addressi ons can be justified, so long as they do not entail deception, but this is totally irrelevant.

[/b]Are you being purposely obtuse. I explained the implication that resulted from your poorly written post. Here, I'll post it again:

This is what you wrote:
"You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse."

All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between your explicit comment about me with the sentence that follows being an explanation of your comment. If you intended them to be taken as two completely independent thoughts, you should have made this clear. Evidently you only intended a childish comment with no explanation. There is no hypocrisy.

My point this whole time has been that the first example of John and the parish priest is not considered a morally justified use of mental reservation and that the second example of the cardinal equivocating is not even a mental reservation. You, however, have attacked the concept of mental reservation itself. As I have said several times since, this is quite irrelevant if a mental reservation is not actually applicable, if the cover-ups are not actually instances of mental reservations. I believe that mental reservations can be justified, so long as they do not entail deception, but this is totally irrelevant.

lol. Just go back and read the posts.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Rome should not only pay it, but if it were to liquidate their assets and came up short, they should be aggrieved that they could do no more. Perhaps you're comfortable with the institution because you similarly lack moral fiber. It's called taking responsibility. Perhaps you'll learn to do this if you mature. That the Church still hasn't matured after centuries says a lot.

Funny how people take this attitude to the Church yet never to other institutions. Very recently, my state government confessed that its orphanages and boarding schools systematically covered up physical and sexual abuse. It has refused to pay compensation. A similar incident involving the Salvation Army too.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you being purposely obtuse. I explained the implication that resulted from your poorly written post. Here, I'll post it again:

[quote]This is what you wrote:
"You have gone off into lala land. Mental reservation does not give a moral justification for cover-ups of sexual abuse."

All in one paragraph with the implication of a link between yo ...[text shortened]... ntail deception, but this is totally irrelevant.[/b]

lol. Just go back and read the posts.[/b]

Here is my first post:

This is an example of a broad mental reservation and the Catholic Church has always condemned this as a form of deception and a sin. Since John does not know there is a reservation and cannot infer that there is a reservation, he is deceived by the parish priest. This constitutes a lie and a mortal sin. Only a strict mental reservation is morally acceptable. In a strict mental reservation, the listener can infer that the words are reserved. An example would be when a telemarketer calls you and you say 'I am busy'; your interlocutor understands that this is just a polite way of saying 'I do not want to speak to you'. Since no deception has occurred or was ever intended, the mental reservation is not sinful. Another example is the confessional. If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I understand that the speaker is a priest and that certain words must be reserved.

This is not even a mental reservation, let alone a strict mental reservation. It is pure equivocation. He is being deliberately ambiguous in using the present tense which suggests that it has always been the case when in fact he means that it is only current. The words are deceptive and since they have been intentionally used that way, it too is a sin.

The 'mental reservation defense' is nothing but an attempt to apportion blame elsewhere. The Cardinal's comments are deliberately deceptive. There is no justification from the side of traditional Catholic moral theology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Funny how people take this attitude to the Church yet never to other institutions. Very recently, my state government confessed that its orphanages and boarding schools systematically covered up physical and sexual abuse. It has refused to pay compensation. A similar incident involving the Salvation Army too.

They should also take responsibility.

With the Church it is especially egregious because of what it purports to be. The hypocrisy is pathetic.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Here is my first post:

This is an example of a broad mental reservation [b]and the Catholic Church has always condemned this as a form of deception and a sin. Since John does not know there is a reservation and cannot infer that there is a reservation, he is deceived by the parish priest. This constitutes a lie and a mortal sin. Only a strict mental ...[text shortened]... ere is no justification from the side of traditional Catholic moral theology.[/b][/b]

Try rereading my first post.