26 April, 2010

Too important to miss! Please read this story.

Too important to miss! Please read this story.

6 comments:

  1. "Does it make a difference in terms of secular law? No."

    Hold it! Hold it. Not so fast...

    It might make a difference. Depending on the secular law, the country, and the prevailing culture.

    "Does it make a difference in terms of moral theology and sin? No."

    Again, that depends on whose version of "moral theology" and "sin."

    These are not always closed questions.

    But if I get your drift on this article, Tim, you're absolutely correct -- not only do words matter, but we also need to pay very close attention to how those words are translated and presented. Bad translations and sloppy presentations make for very bad information on which to base an opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lady Janus: As always you're on the mark! But I do point out that there was no language issue between the British account and the report of the NYT. Malevolence is far more likely an explanation than any interpretative or translational issue. Not only are words misused ('young man' becomes 'boy') but the changes in punctuation give an entirely different meaning between the two accounts.

    I'm in the 'give people the benefit of the doubt' crowd, but even such a requirement of charity cannot explain the mutation of the original documents into the slander published in the NYT.

    I repeat for those who intend to jump on me with accusations of being unconcerned for the welfare of victims that the original story makes clear that the Bishops partner was not a minor when he entered into a sexual relationship with him. It makes a world of difference if someone who is of the age of majority makes a decision to engage in a sexual activity: it is neither child abuse nor pedophiliac behavior.

    Yet this 'young man' is turned into a 'boy' with long time connections to the then priest. It puts the activity into a much more ominous light - an interpretation seemingly not justified by the facts as initially reported.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. That brings me to my next question, then...if the bishop's partner was not a minor, he must have been a consenting adult...so why did the bishop "confess" to "abuse?" Clearly, it was not abuse!

    Or is that more mistranslation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lady Janus: It was an abuse of power. It was a violation of his religious vows and obligation. It was not a crime in any legal sense. This is why I state that it must have been with malicious intent that the NYT mutated the story to play up its salacious aspect.

    It is clearly little more than an attack on the Church.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  5. It may not have been malicious, and it may not have been an attack. I read it that the bishop had admitted sexual abuse...in the Catholic News Service, and then again in The Independent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wikipedia reports that the young man involved was his 'teenaged nephew'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Vangheluwe

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics