Dear George,

“I included the two quotes because I thought they were relevant and interesting. Sorry, if they were not. As for my own opinion, it is spelled out in my former posts…”

This is a forum. The purpose is to exchanges ideas. Sometimes the synthesis of several points of view can be more valuable than a personal view conscientiously held. In this context, your points of view are highly relevant, owing to the nature of a debate and the intent of free expression.

I feel I raised two key points, (1) that a Bank did not act like a Church regarding the bribery loan and (2) that Christians look to the Pauline-Constantinian church more so than the first century mission, demonstrating the danger of protecting an institution vis-à-vis morals. Else put, (1) the Church is acting as if it has special privilege above secular law and (2) parishioners do not apply the standards of Jesus to the Church.

“If you have evidence of a PARTICULAR case of criminal cover-up (involving or not a bishop), you should report it to legal authorities...”

I do not need to have the internal records of “big tobacco” to believe, with confidence, press accounts of cover-ups. Besides, the media’s account of a past Bishop of Boston seems valid and US police are being thwarted by the Church. Why?

The connections between Confession, penance and secrecy are problematic. Determinations of secret ecclesiastical courts over the false penance by priests makes it hard for the Church to turn-in paedophile priests. While the priest can be punished, the deliberations of the Court are not revealed to secular authorities. A change in church procedures could have Absolution withheld, until “after” the priest/brother surrenders to police.
Dawkins:

The implication was that the memories of claimants “are” false. The extrapolation was too great. The reality of planted thoughts in experimental situations and confabulation in age regression hypnosis is well known. Yet, I would dare to say, that much testimony about crime, say, a witnessing a robbery, usually does have some basis in reality. Else, our justice system is a sham.

The skill of posting (i.e. writing) is the skill
of using words. Sometimes the words are acerbic,
sharp as a scalpel, or they may work a special
magic of their own. I guess it's the skill of
the poster that welds the words together. Some
have qualities that widen the mind's eye - which make
one think new things; it can be of an emotional or
moral kind in which one feels and understands new
perspectives. Or it can be one that closes the mind,
by it's nastiness. Finally, I guess that we take what we
want from various postings and our responses may not
always be searching or comprehensive. If a post
however is a good one - it will create enjoyment at
many levels, in may ways, and it will bring a light to
one's eyes. Or it will be depressing and a total turn-off
because of the way it's been posted - and the choice of
words.

I guess it's up to us - how we choose to express ourselves.
It's important to remember however that there are people
reading what we post - we're not just talking to a computer
screen.

Oliver

"I do not need to have the internal records of “big tobacco” to believe, with confidence, press accounts of cover-ups. "

I have a 1/6d edition of PIX. 7 July, 1962.

On the cover is a headline "New hope for all smokers".

Inside, just prior to the ad' for 'Kool' fags, featuring a head shot of a ships captain with a worried look on his face and the statement 'Clear-headed men smoke Kool', is a nonsense article challenging the findings of the 1959 started UK Royal College of Physicians report that declared smoking to be a health hazard.

In a rerun of the ID-Creationist arguments, PIX claim they just want to show there are 'two sides to this debate', oh yeah?

Mind you, in 1959, scientists who doubted smoking was a cause of cancer, were hot on the trail of airborne pollutants, including bonfire smoke and exhaust fumes.

Shame the airborne polluters we all drive were not chased with as much vigour as fag companies have been.

Foxy...is this a mea culpa?

The start of a new style?

I await the new look with eagerness.

“If you have evidence of a PARTICULAR case of criminal cover-up (involving or not a bishop), you should report it to legal authorities...” - George

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6048

- Should have John Paul II gone to the Police?

"In September 2001, Bishop Pican received a three-month suspended sentence for failing to report the abuse." - from above link

- Why not three years in prison? Pican isn't a teenager, who took a car on joy ride, wherein in a Court might be lenient given the defendant's youth and a minor first offence. We have a mature man, a serious crime and institutional cover-up, here. I wonder if the judge was influenced by the criminal being a bishop?

If we are to allow the Church and State to protect each others' accountability for transgressions, we might as well jump in a time machine and go back to the eleventh century. I trust the Australian courts are not as whimpish as the French over cover-ups after-the-fact.

Catholic clerics and parishioners are doing little to protect their Church. Ironically, it could be skeptics and atheists advocating secular legal involvement that has a better chance of protecting the Church and the high morals of a first century mendicant and teacher.

Dear Blue Cross,

No. Just trying to lift the bar of our
styles in posting. Frank Blunt's post
(and a few others) -
depressed the heck out of me.
Not on what they wrote but the way it was
expressed.

I've go to confess also - that I've been influenced
by reading stories to children during my
Storytime Sessions at the Library recently -
that's what gave me the idea.

Why can't our posts be a bit more inventive?
(not sure if that's the right word - but you
know what I mean, I hope).

Like Roald Dahl's:

"It's disgusterous!" the BFG gurgled.
"It's sickable!" It's rotsome! It's maggotwise!
Try it yourself, this foulsome snozzcumber!"

Or -
Kenneth Grahame's description of Mole's walk
beside the river in "The Wind in the Willows." :

"The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated.
By the side of the river he trotted as one trots,
when very small, by the side of a man, who holds
one spellbound by exciting stories; and when tired at
last, he sat on the bank, while the river, still chattered
on to him, a babbling procession of the best stories in
the world, sent home from the heart of the earth to be told
at last to the insatiable sea..."

I'm probably babbling - but I hope it makes sense.
Or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part.