Good will to all men? Not from the grumpy atheists! (Thank God not all atheists are grumpy but there sure seems to be a lot of them)
Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussions? The language of many of their contributions in public debate is laced with invective and dripping with sarcasm and bile. There are exceptions of course, but they tend to fall more into the category of being the 'exception that proves the rule' when compared to the hostility of many of today's atheist posters. Comment offered by the theists in the public square is often depicted as being 'malicious' or 'venomous' and intended to enslave the 'feeble minded and weak' by those who post. Nothing could be further from the truth. Venom is something that is oriented to death. Christians are oriented in a 180 degree different direction. We speak not to the culture of death that grips our world but rather for the culture of life and light which ends with the gift of eternal life. For example, the Catholic Church in its hum...
"Does it make a difference in terms of secular law? No."
ReplyDeleteHold it! Hold it. Not so fast...
It might make a difference. Depending on the secular law, the country, and the prevailing culture.
"Does it make a difference in terms of moral theology and sin? No."
Again, that depends on whose version of "moral theology" and "sin."
These are not always closed questions.
But if I get your drift on this article, Tim, you're absolutely correct -- not only do words matter, but we also need to pay very close attention to how those words are translated and presented. Bad translations and sloppy presentations make for very bad information on which to base an opinion...
Lady Janus: As always you're on the mark! But I do point out that there was no language issue between the British account and the report of the NYT. Malevolence is far more likely an explanation than any interpretative or translational issue. Not only are words misused ('young man' becomes 'boy') but the changes in punctuation give an entirely different meaning between the two accounts.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the 'give people the benefit of the doubt' crowd, but even such a requirement of charity cannot explain the mutation of the original documents into the slander published in the NYT.
I repeat for those who intend to jump on me with accusations of being unconcerned for the welfare of victims that the original story makes clear that the Bishops partner was not a minor when he entered into a sexual relationship with him. It makes a world of difference if someone who is of the age of majority makes a decision to engage in a sexual activity: it is neither child abuse nor pedophiliac behavior.
Yet this 'young man' is turned into a 'boy' with long time connections to the then priest. It puts the activity into a much more ominous light - an interpretation seemingly not justified by the facts as initially reported.
Fr. Tim
That brings me to my next question, then...if the bishop's partner was not a minor, he must have been a consenting adult...so why did the bishop "confess" to "abuse?" Clearly, it was not abuse!
ReplyDeleteOr is that more mistranslation?
Lady Janus: It was an abuse of power. It was a violation of his religious vows and obligation. It was not a crime in any legal sense. This is why I state that it must have been with malicious intent that the NYT mutated the story to play up its salacious aspect.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly little more than an attack on the Church.
Fr. Tim
It may not have been malicious, and it may not have been an attack. I read it that the bishop had admitted sexual abuse...in the Catholic News Service, and then again in The Independent.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia reports that the young man involved was his 'teenaged nephew'
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Vangheluwe