Saturday, February 22, 2020
A Shocking Development
Is the report anything more than a summary of credible allegations? After all, a criminal investigation or conviction is not possible. How can there be a conclusive investigation if the accused cannot defend himself or provide evidence that could clear him?
CNA/CWR: L’Arche reports sexual misconduct by founder Jean Vanier
L'Arche founder Jean Vanier sexually abused women
It seems that no Christian institution, no matter the reputation for being charitable, can be trusted. Rather, the care of the "less abled" must be relocalized and facilitated for families or in non-familial settings where accountability is enforced.
From last year:
Jean Vanier:
‘The Beauty of Compassion’ Jean Vanier in the Holy Land
In Search of the Human Face: Identity and the Challenge of Disability
In Search of the Human Face: Identity and the Challenge of Disability
CNA/CWR: L’Arche reports sexual misconduct by founder Jean Vanier
L'Arche founder Jean Vanier sexually abused women
It seems that no Christian institution, no matter the reputation for being charitable, can be trusted. Rather, the care of the "less abled" must be relocalized and facilitated for families or in non-familial settings where accountability is enforced.
From last year:
Jean Vanier:
‘The Beauty of Compassion’ Jean Vanier in the Holy Land
In Search of the Human Face: Identity and the Challenge of Disability
In Search of the Human Face: Identity and the Challenge of Disability
Friday, February 21, 2020
Lord Have Mercy
A song, "Let Us Meet in Spring", dedicted to peeple of #Wuhan, struggling under #COVID19, in Chinese, by my friends Wen Zhao and Doriu Liu.
— 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 21, 2020
文昭、秋旻對唱：約在春天相見
献给在 #武汉肺炎 中抗争的人们https://t.co/h0MsyENiaT
The standard procedure of how you should deal with #COVID19. I guess this is only a drill.
— 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 21, 2020
对付 #武汉肺炎 #新冠病毒 标准化流程。我猜这是在演习吧。看起来有点吓人就是了。
Click here for more 更多视频: https://t.co/fSwmxEsPYp#Coronavirus #CoronavirusOutbreak #coronaviruschina pic.twitter.com/l1Dfu3bevL
I saw three very graphic videos today. One jumped off a high building, two hung themselves, one man and one woman. Despair and helplessness are growing, especially when infected people don't want to infect their families. #COVID2019 #Coronavirus #CoronavirusOutbreak
— 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng (@jenniferatntd) February 21, 2020
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Weigel's Apologia for Clerical Celibacy
Beyond Amazonia
"Celibacy, a total gift of self to God, only makes sense in a Kingdom context."
What does "total gift of self to God" really mean? Loving God above all others? All are called to do that. Giving up every good other than God, food, water, oxygen too? Loving God only? So we shouldn't love our parents or friends? Even monks still love others and the Church, even if they are free from any other concrete duties to others.
This theological language is very sloppy and doesn't help the Latin apologetic for clerical celibacy/continence. I thought it was sloppy in Karol Wojtyla's writing too, especially when compared to the scholastics.
If total gift of self requires the giving up of one good, why not the giving up of other goods as well? Hence my examples of food, water, oxygen. Now the response may be that it is giving up of all goods not necessary for life. Then why shouldn't "total gift of self" entail the giving up of all family ties and friendships, and a host of other goods not essential to survival, television, alcohol, golf and whatever else priests may indulge in? If the apologists for clerical celibacy talk about the "total gift of self to God" as just meaning celibacy, then yes, there is a problem with their use of words and logic. The current preferred Latin theological defense of clerical celibacy/continence (which was formulated and gained prominence only within the last 50 years or so) strikes me as just being a post hoc rationalization since it is so poorly thought-out.
Now it may be that someone can explain celibacy no longer as a "sacrifice" or the giving up of some good (wife and family), but I don't know of anyone who has done that yet.
The most reasonable claim would be a rather pragmatic one, that the celibate priest is free from the responsibilities of marriage (but not from responsibilities to family, friends, or even the political community necessarily), and in theory he would have more time to devote to ministering to his parish community. But let's not say that this is because the priest is making a "total gift of himself" -- that turns out to be a rhetorical exaggeration, at best.
"Celibacy, a total gift of self to God, only makes sense in a Kingdom context."
What does "total gift of self to God" really mean? Loving God above all others? All are called to do that. Giving up every good other than God, food, water, oxygen too? Loving God only? So we shouldn't love our parents or friends? Even monks still love others and the Church, even if they are free from any other concrete duties to others.
This theological language is very sloppy and doesn't help the Latin apologetic for clerical celibacy/continence. I thought it was sloppy in Karol Wojtyla's writing too, especially when compared to the scholastics.
If total gift of self requires the giving up of one good, why not the giving up of other goods as well? Hence my examples of food, water, oxygen. Now the response may be that it is giving up of all goods not necessary for life. Then why shouldn't "total gift of self" entail the giving up of all family ties and friendships, and a host of other goods not essential to survival, television, alcohol, golf and whatever else priests may indulge in? If the apologists for clerical celibacy talk about the "total gift of self to God" as just meaning celibacy, then yes, there is a problem with their use of words and logic. The current preferred Latin theological defense of clerical celibacy/continence (which was formulated and gained prominence only within the last 50 years or so) strikes me as just being a post hoc rationalization since it is so poorly thought-out.
Now it may be that someone can explain celibacy no longer as a "sacrifice" or the giving up of some good (wife and family), but I don't know of anyone who has done that yet.
The most reasonable claim would be a rather pragmatic one, that the celibate priest is free from the responsibilities of marriage (but not from responsibilities to family, friends, or even the political community necessarily), and in theory he would have more time to devote to ministering to his parish community. But let's not say that this is because the priest is making a "total gift of himself" -- that turns out to be a rhetorical exaggeration, at best.
A Reminder But Will Young Women Be Humbled By It?
Not if they just live in the present.
A friendly reminder that the wall spares no one.https://t.co/YH9ls5tcbs
— Richard Cooper (@Rich_Cooper) February 20, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)