Comments on: Abuse and dominant power structures http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/ Opportunities to say what I think about current church stuff. You're welcome to add comments, but please forgive me if I'm very slow to answer them. Comments are moderated, too, so don't expect them to appear immediately you post them. Note:This blog is independently accessible at http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:55:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Clare http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-10 Clare Mon, 19 May 2008 03:58:30 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-10 Further note on events: Robinson has replied to the ACBC statement, saying the church is trying to suppress debate on abuse within its ranks. And LA bishop Roger Mahoney has denied Robinson permission to speak in the LA diocese while on his current lecture tour. See http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/church-trying-to-limit-abuse-debate/2008/05/16/1210765184824.html Further note on events: Robinson has replied to the ACBC statement, saying the church is trying to suppress debate on abuse within its ranks. And LA bishop Roger Mahoney has denied Robinson permission to speak in the LA diocese while on his current lecture tour.
See http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/church-trying-to-limit-abuse-debate/2008/05/16/1210765184824.html

]]> By: Clare http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-9 Clare Sun, 18 May 2008 10:58:28 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-9 Indeed! It never ceases to amaze me that everyday people (Catholics, that is, who are the only ones who really care to read this stuff, as a general rule) don't read between the lines. Because that last paragraph says, in effect: "Even if we're wrong, we still maintain our authority to teach our wrongness as truth." Chilling is right! Indeed! It never ceases to amaze me that everyday people (Catholics, that is, who are the only ones who really care to read this stuff, as a general rule) don’t read between the lines. Because that last paragraph says, in effect: “Even if we’re wrong, we still maintain our authority to teach our wrongness as truth.”

Chilling is right!

]]> By: jaqi http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-8 jaqi Sun, 18 May 2008 10:51:41 +0000 http://clergyabuseaustralia.org/blog/2008/05/13/abuse-and-dominant-power-structures/#comment-8 May God bless Bishop Geoffrey Robinson and further all his doings. Is it the bishops' intention to suggest that thinking for oneself is a potentially criminal act under Canon Law? I suppose it is. Chilling. But consider this, the closing paragraph of the bishops' statement: "The authority entrusted by Christ to his Church may at times be poorly exercised, especially in shaping policy and practice in complex areas of pastoral and human concern. This does not, in Catholic belief, invalidate the Church's authority to teach particular truths of faith and morals." What about if that 'authority' is poorly exercised not 'at times' but _as a matter of routine_ in a particular area of policy and practice? Then, surely, if the Church is failing to uphold 'particular truths of faith and morals' it could be argued that it has no authority to define (and thus teach) them. May God bless Bishop Geoffrey Robinson and further all his doings. Is it the bishops’ intention to suggest that thinking for oneself is a potentially criminal act under Canon Law? I suppose it is. Chilling.

But consider this, the closing paragraph of the bishops’ statement:

“The authority entrusted by Christ to his Church may at times be poorly exercised, especially in shaping policy and practice in complex areas of pastoral and human concern. This does not, in Catholic belief, invalidate the Church’s authority to teach particular truths of faith and morals.”

What about if that ‘authority’ is poorly exercised not ‘at times’ but _as a matter of routine_ in a particular area of policy and practice? Then, surely, if the Church is failing to uphold ‘particular truths of faith and morals’ it could be argued that it has no authority to define (and thus teach) them.

]]>