ALEXANDER SAID:
(Waiting to see when idiots like Steve Hays is going to publically [sic] condemn the Boy Scouts as a corrupt organization...but I still do not have much confidence in his ability to make the necessary logical distinctions regarding the Church and her membership in her)
So Steve, when are you going to condemn the Boy Scouts as a corrupt organization? Or is it that your condemnations only extend to Catholics?
1.While we’re on the subject of idiocy, it’s unintentionally revealing that a Catholic epologist defends the Roman church by comparing his denomination to the BSA.
The BSA has been corrupted insofar as militant liberals have insisted that the BSA accept sodomite Scout leaders into its ranks. So, by Alexander’s own argument from analogy, the Roman church and the BSA have both been corrupted by homosexual leadership.
(BTW, I don’t know the degree to which that subversive effort has been successful.)
And why does a Catholic epologist happen to think I’d have a problem with that comparison, exactly? Wouldn’t his invidious comparison be problematic for the Catholic position rather than my Protestant alternative?
2.Moreover, I’m on record condemning the corruption of the BSA by the coercive social agenda of militant liberals. But a brain-donor like Alex can’t be bothered to check whether or not I had a public position on the BSA before he trotted out his comparison–as if I’d blink in the face of his example.
Indeed, I used to receive regular updates from Hans Zeiger about efforts by militant liberals to subvert the BSA.
And I still receive updates from the American Civil Rights Union, with whom he’s affiliated.
3.As to distinguishing the Church from her membership, we’re talking about corruption from the top down. Benedict XVI can’t plead plausible deniability. To the contrary, he’s been a central player in this entire scandal, as he and other “princes” of the “one true church” colluded to stonewall the legal authorities. As the saying goes, a fish rots head first.
Wow. You sure do have a way with mental meltdowns. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteAgain, how am I defending the Roman Church by pointing out that you spend and inordinate amount of time making fallacious appeals by condemning the Church due to folks who claim to be Catholic violating her teachings, and yet you were silent on the Boy Scouts scandal?
ReplyDeleteAgain...wow!
Alexander also said, I still do not have much confidence in his ability to make the necessary logical distinctions regarding the Church and her membership in her.
ReplyDeleteThe "logical distinction" you mention is an "aristotelian form." Biblically, such a distinction does not exist. Jesus clearly identifies "the church" as "where two or three are gathered in my name." That is, he doesn't hold that somehow they are just "members of the church." They are "church."
He presses this home throughout the entire Matthew 18 pericope. In fact, in a prophetic way, Jesus addresses this whole Roman Catholic complex of issues of (a) sexual abuse of children, and (b) the institutional cover-up of the abuse.
After all, Jesus, at that time, knew he had instituted a papacy in Peter, and that Joseph Ratzinger, who sent a secret letter to all the bishops of the world instructing them to keep secret what they find in these sexual abuse situations, would be a part of this succession that he had just divinely instituted. (Which the apostles didn't know about, because this divinely instituted succession had yet to "develop".)
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" and calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
It is well-known that abuse in the life of a child leads to patterns of sexual abuse in those children. In fact, there is probably no clearer way to "cause" a "little one" to sin, than by sexually abusing him.
One wonders if Jesus, who was aware that he had just conferred the papacy on Peter, and knew that Ratzinger would be a part of this succession that he had just instituted for all time, would have also logically understood the connection that he prophetically had just made, and he would have prophetically seen that it was Ratzinger himself who had the great millstone fastened around his neck, to be drowned in the depth of the sea?
Given the strength of Jesus's divine institution of the papacy, and the "supreme power of the Roman Pontiff of ruling the Universal Church" (Denzinger 1829), doesn't it seem likely that, at that moment, Jesus was prophetically envisioning the millstone around Ratzinger's neck, for causing these little ones to sin?
Alexander writes:
ReplyDeleteWow. You sure do have a way with mental meltdowns. Good luck with that.
Wow. You sure do have a way with meaningless responses. Good luck with that.
ALEXANDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Again, how am I defending the Roman Church by pointing out that you spend and inordinate amount of time making fallacious appeals by condemning the Church due to folks who claim to be Catholic violating her teachings..."
Do those who merely "claim" to be Catholic while violating her teachings include the pope and the bishops who were orchestrating this scandal? Or do you think the official cover-up, facilitation of clerical pederasty, &c., is consistent with Catholic teaching?
"and yet you were silent on the Boy Scouts scandal?"
i) You're such a klutz. I commented on the situation of the BSA years ago:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/discrimination-against-atheists.html
However, the BSA is hardly comparable to the Roman church:
ii) The BSA doesn't claim to be a divine institution. So I wouldn't expect it to behave like a divine institution.
iii) The BSA is being subverted from the outside, not the inside. Subverted by outside interest groups (militant liberals) who are pressuring the BSA to cave in on homosexual membership and leadership.
That's completely different from the church of Rome, which has been corrupted from the inside out. The corruption of Rome is intrinsic to Rome. Not due to outside forces.
For somebody who touts logical distinctions, your inability to draw logical distinctions is striking.
ALEXANDER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Again, how am I defending the Roman Church..."
You're a classic enabler. You give cover to the corrupt institution which you unconditionally defend.
Actually, Steve, I am refering to the sexual abuse scandal:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031904657.html