Thursday, August 25, 2011

Wearing two hats


DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:

I have never countenanced sexual abuse from priests. I condemn it wholeheartedly as an abomination and an outrage, as my Church did.

On weekends, Dave is a Green Peace activist condemning water pollution downstream. During the week, Dave is employed by the factory further upstream that contaminates the water.  Dave the loyal company spokesman stoutly defends the polluting factory while Dave the volunteer protester roundly condemns the pollution. 
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

8 comments:

  1. EA8/25/2011 5:49 PM

    "I have never countenanced sexual abuse from priests. I condemn it wholeheartedly as an abomination and an outrage, as my Church did."

    I'm willing to give DA the benefit of the doubt that he never countenanced the sexual abuse by priests. However, the RCC only condemned it AFTER the revelations of decades worth of abuse had literally hit the front page of the newspapers. Up to that point, the RCC (or at least a good percentage of the hierarchy) certainly countenanced it and worse many of those that countenanced it were shielded from criminal prosecution and civil litigation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EA8/25/2011 6:11 PM

    By the way, the Arch-Diocese of Boston released both its policy regarding priests accused of sexual abuse and the names of those priests where the priest had been found guilty canonically or civilly. The names are also published where the priest's name had previously entered into the public domain.

    That list can be found here

    ReplyDelete
  3. CathApol8/26/2011 12:54 AM

    1) I'd be interested in where these "facts" come from.

    2) How does what he does for employment have anything to do with his apologetics?

    It would be one thing if he were working as a Jehovah's Witness during the day and then preaching defense of Catholicism by night - but you're comparing apples to oranges here. It would seem your approach to Mr. Armstrong is the apologetics of personal destruction.

    Similarly, while I do not support everything Robert Sungenis says on non-dogmatic teachings, but what he's said and written for the sake of Catholic apologetics has been exemplary. His "Not By ____" series has been and remains atop my list of good reference material, regardless of where I might disagree with him on other (again, non-dogmatic) matters.

    3) (To EA) The RCC has ALWAYS condemned sexual abuse/immorality. Yes, SOME bishops "allowed" SOME perverts to remain in the priesthood, but the Church sees that permissiveness as errant as well.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Bugay8/26/2011 5:52 AM

    Don't forget, "the Church" may be "the pope and bishops together" or not, depending upon the needs of the moment. Sometimes, when "the pope and bishops together" are bad, they are not really "the Church". "The Church" is invisible that way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. EA8/26/2011 8:16 AM

    "Yes, SOME bishops "allowed" SOME perverts to remain in the priesthood, but the Church sees that permissiveness as errant as well."

    I'm sorry but I can't take this statement seriously. What happened to Cardinal Law under whom these abuses occurred in the arch-diocese of Boston for two decades? How was his "errant" misfeasance dealt with? Was he laicized? Was he canonically censured or condemned? No, he serves as arch-priest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. He is still a member of the curia. He still serves on a number of pontifical councils.

    The high sounding words of lay apologists are drowned out by the actions of the hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. steve8/26/2011 8:39 AM

    CathApol said...

    "It would seem your approach to Mr. Armstrong is the apologetics of personal destruction."

    Dave is good for comic relief. We do a lot of heavy-duty apologetics here, so he’s the commercial break.

    ReplyDelete
  7. steve8/26/2011 9:41 AM

    CATHAPOL SAID:

    "1) I'd be interested in where these 'facts' come from. 2) How does what he does for employment have anything to do with his apologetics?"

    I used a metaphorical analogy. You never get it, do you, Scott? You just don't have what it takes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Turretinfan8/26/2011 12:56 PM

    "Yes, SOME bishops "allowed" SOME perverts to remain in the priesthood, but the Church sees that permissiveness as errant as well."

    Compare:

    "What do we know of Archbishop Favalora? First he was the most powerful Catholic official in Southern Florida up from 1994 through 2010. He is accused of being a leading part of the mythical lavender mob. rampant sex, hedonism, embezzlement, alcoholism, and the railroading of chaste priests among them—while punishing those with the temerity to complain."

    http://rainbowsashmovement.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/archbishop-john-c-favalora-of-miami-part-of-the-lavender-mafia-or-not/

    Gawker posted an expose that is too graphic to link to.

    Of course, that's not the sexual abuse of children - it's the larger and more fundamental problem of sodomites in Rome's hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)