quote:

---

Last night I was watching 60 minutes which was on (once again) the incredible way the Catholic church has covered up and protected its pedophile priests. It was positively appauling. I don't think its judgmental to say "this is appauling." I don't think its judgmental to say "this is evil." I don't think its judgmental to say "abusing children in the name of God is evil." What IS judgmental, I believe, is one I conclude in my mind that a particular pedophile priest is evil, or even that a bishop who covered it up is evil. They MAY BE, but that belongs to God. I don't know this. I don't know their stories. I can think of many mitigating circumstances which may have influenced them, or even virtually determined them, to be involved in this. For all I know, if I were in their exact same shoes, I may have done the same thing. I also know that, whatever their degree of moral responsibility is, I am not more righteous than they are. We both were on death row for crucifying the Savior, and it really is pointless to quibble about what particular nails we used to do it.

My response to this situation, then, should be to pray for justice for the victims, but also for forgiveness for the perpetrators. Of course, I would never ask a formerly pedophile priest to baby-sit my children. In fact, I think society should treat them as they do all pedophiles. They should serve time. I think the whole business of being "protected by the Church" is damaging to the Kingdom of God. But as a citizen of the kingdom, I can't ever confuse the demands of society or the expediency of good discernment with ULTIMATE TRUTH about the person.

---

I think you do judge righteous judgment when you say it is appauling. This is evil. Plain and simple. That kinda of judgement is needed. The church should not legitimize sexual sin. I don't think in calling evil evil one is judging others nor is one centering out one sin above others. But it seems like this last point is what others here would say you would be doing in making such statements.

Yes, I think it looks bad on the Catholic Church that these sins have been going on. Part of that is due to the media coverage. This stuff is going on on University and college campuses for the longest time at the same time at the same or even higher rate than the Catholic Church and you don't hear a peep out of the media. I am going to look this up (heard 'bout it on the radio), but I think there is more to it than just "cover-up" which would be appauling. The issue is more complex than that.

Lastly, I would like to invite everyone over to the Bonhoffer thread for what I have to say there in response to Greg's sampling of B. I think it will be very helpful in guiding us in this and many other discussions and issues. Hopefully, I will have it up in the next couple of days. Later...


Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden

quote:

---

Brandon said:

The church should not legitimize sexual sin.

Semeia:

Then why did God legitimize it?

God allowed for divorce and remarriage, because of the hardness of people's hearts. Jesus made it crystal clear that, except in cases of unchastity, divorce and remarriage is adultery: i.e., ongoing sexual sin.

One might almost conclude from this that God loves people more than principles.

Now if you are only talking about pedophilia, of course I agree that the church should not legitimize a crime - not because it is a sexual sin, but because it hurts people.

Thanks,
Semeia



"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

---

quote:

---

You asked me about the quotes. The first is a direct quote – "Our sin is so large we are blinded to even seeing our brother’s sin, and if we could see it, we would realize it is only a speck." - from the post Posted on 06/10/2002 : 3:59:06 PM, around the 20th paragraph. The second thing I put in quotes was not intended as a direct quote, but as the obvious conclusion to what you said in the first quote. You never said directly "the speck is not a speck", but that was how you were saying we should look at our brother's sin. This seriously confuses me. You say "we are to look at our brothers sin as a speck" but then you say stuff like (paraphrasing…) "we are blind to his sin because of our own sin" or "we cannot and should not think anything our brother is doing is sin." You are right when you say that we should look at our brother sin as a speck compared to our own… but when I said that you may be reading your own presuppositions into this text, I meant it in this: there is nothing in the parable that even intimates that our brother's "speck" is in reality not even a "speck" at all. Nor does it say that we should not even see a "speck" at all because (as you said) " Our sin is so large we are blinded to even seeing our brother’s sin." That is obviously (as far as I see it in my epistemological finitude, of course) not what the Lord was teaching here. How then do you, from this parable, come to the conclusion that we should be blind to sin in our brother?

---

Semeia:

Thanks for tracking down that quote. I didn’t feel like rereading every word I wrote on this thread! The reason I asked that was because I was sure I hadn’t said, “the speck is not a speck” and that called into question for me whether or not other things in quotations were paraphrases. In the interest of clarity, it would help me if you only used quotation marks when it is a direct quote, or a hypothetical, but not when you are restating in your own words what you think I said. I tend to get defensive when words are attributed to me that I didn’t say. Even if you don’t agree, just humor me on this one…

One other minor point related to the “how” of our discussion: you keep referring to the scripture on the log and the speck as a parable. I am not a Biblical scholar; I’ve been wrong before and I could be wrong here, but the scripture on the log and the speck is from the Sermon on the Mount, which was preached directly to crowds of people, as a sermon. I think of parables as more “hypothetical” stories illustrating a point. This was something Jesus was preaching directly to the crowds and, I believe, to us. It was a much more direct form of communication than a parable. When Jesus says, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged” he is not giving a hypothetical in a story, he is giving a command.

Whether or not we believe it is a hypothetical or a command affects how we hear it.

Now to try to clear up the confusion about the log and the speck:

Nowhere do I say that “the speck is not a speck.” What I have tried to get at is what Jesus is telling us our attitude should be about our sin in comparison to our brother’s sin. If our sin is a tree trunk, and theirs is a speck, what should be our concern? Jesus asks the crowd, and asks us, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “if” you have a log in your eye – he assumes that the people he is speaking to all have a log in their eye. And yet if they turn and look at the person right next to them (who Jesus also says has a log in their eye), Jesus defines that person’s sin as a “speck.” This may seem confusing at first: which is it, a log or a speck? He seems to be saying something contradictory, that everyone’s sin is BOTH a log and a speck. But it makes perfect sense when we realize that he is not attempting to give a true measure of the sin, but rather that he is giving us what our perspective should be on sin. As Doc alluded to, he’s not dealing with an extraordinary group of sinners here, nor is he dealing with a group of saints. Only God knows the true measure of sin of each person, and when we set ourselves up as “judge” and play God by thinking we know our brother’s sin, that game will backfire on us – for God will allow us to be judged by our own judgment, “For with the judgment you make you will be judged.”

So, if we have a log in our eye, which Jesus says we do, how do we see past it? How big is a log in comparison to one’s eyes? Wouldn’t a log in our eyes blind us? Wouldn’t it blind us to our brother’s sin? And if you disagree with that, can you please give me some kind of description to explain how we can see past a log in our eyes? I can’t picture it.

Adam said:

How then do you, from this parable, come to the conclusion that we should be blind to sin in our brother?

Semeia:

Based on the Sermon on the Mount I come to the conclusion that we ARE blind to our brother’s sin. At this point “should” doesn’t enter into it. When Jesus tells me that my own sin is a log in my eye, I conclude that I can’t see past a log.

And Jesus goes on to say that when I take the log out of my eye (if that is possible) what I would see of my brother’s sin would be the size of a speck. And how interesting should a speck of sin be to me? A speck is like a dust mote. If you only had a dust mote of sin in you, wouldn’t you be pretty annoyed if someone harassed you about it? I sure would. But of course I don’t have a dust mote. I have a log in my eye.

The crowds of people Jesus is talking to are also neighbors to each other. So Jesus is telling them that their sin to themselves should be like a log, but to others their sin should be like a speck. To me, this is a very clear mandate from God about where my concern should lie concerning sin – it should lie with my own sin, not my brother’s.

Realizing that Jesus is talking about what our PERSPECTIVE should be, and not giving an actual analysis of the amount of sin in each of us, is critical to understanding this passage. Because logically, if he tells a crowd of people that their sin is like a log in their eye, and he means it to be an “actual” analysis of their sin, then one would expect that if one person managed to get the log out of their eye, what they would see is a crowd of people with LOGS in their eyes. But Jesus doesn’t say that. He says that what they will see is the SPECK in their brother’s eye. He is telling us how we should “see” other people’s sin – as next to invisible: a speck. And he says this at a point in his sermon after he has convicted each of us on our sin: saying that lust in your heart is the same as adultery; the angry thought the same as murder. And he says it right after COMMANDING us not to judge. Because there is only one lawgiver and judge.

So Adam, how do you interpret Jesus words here? What do you think he is saying? Do you think he is suggesting that we should be vigilant about rooting out people’s specks? And why did he say that the log was in our eye? Why not just say that it was blocking our path? Doesn’t saying that we have a log in our eye suggest that we are blinded by it?

Adam, I am working on answering the questions and addressing the issues that you bring up in the rest of your post, but I think I’ll go ahead and post this before doing the next section. Perhaps we can pinpoint the difference of opinion here before moving on. But I will answer the rest of it as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Semeia


"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 06/15/2002 5:20:35 PM

quote:

---

Isn’t the whole problem that we are looking to our knowledge of good and evil to get life? Instead of getting life by following the highest commandment: To love God with all our heart, and love our neighbor as ourself?

Thanks,
Semeia

---

Semeia,

I completely agree with most everything you say. And, I am certainly still guilty of "getting life" (at least unconsciously) from many things I do, even though I've had an "exploding love" experience similar to that mentioned earlier. I think we all are. This is why we are called to CONTINUALLY renew our mind, and guard our heart.

What I can't see is the difference between picking out some areas of sin that are "ok" to live in, and some that aren't, whether they "hurt" people or not. (as fallible people ourselves)

The reason I'm speaking to you here (instead of the Ethic's thread) is that I'm hoping to hear from YOU--not Bonhoeffer. From everything I've read, I think you are beautiful and I value your opinion.

What I'm trying to understand is how you "do" love. It would be helpful to me if you would share a little more about your sisters and how that particular situation doesn't fall under the catagory of "action", or "doing love" rather than "judgement". (If it's within YOUR relationship with them--not anyone else's)

I'm thinking of your question to me about the pastor who was sinning. Couldn't the same questions be asked here about you and your sisters?
Why, or why not?

quote:

---

In the situations you bring up, would it be loving to let those behaviors continue?

---

Only wondering, and I completely understand if you don't want to share. I'm just looking for advice through personal experience. Also, I want to make clear that even though I don't understand the separation of "hurtful" sin and not "hurtful" sin. I DO understand that it all belongs to God and not us.

As I try to apply these things in my life, one problem I'm having is learing where to draw the line of "confronting in love" or "just loving" within the circle of my intimate friendships. This,to me,is the nitty gritty

peace and love,
lucia
ps. I'm wondering if I missed where Greg/others gave a theological opinion on divorce and remarriage?? If it is continual sexual sin vs. forgiveness etc... Could anyone direct me? Otherwise, hint hint.

quote:

---

Brandon said:

The church should not legitimize sexual sin.

Semeia:

Then why did God legitimize it?

God allowed for divorce and remarriage, because of the hardness of people's hearts. Jesus made it crystal clear that, except in cases of unchastity, divorce and remarriage is adultery: i.e., ongoing sexual sin.

One might almost conclude from this that God loves people more than principles.

Now if you are only talking about pedophilia, of course I agree that the church should not legitimize a crime - not because it is a sexual sin, but because it hurts people.

Thanks,
Semeia



"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

---

quote:

---

Semeia hon,

I think you misunderstand my point. So if our Lord "legitimized" divorce...

---

Marriage is something that actually did not cease with the fall.

Like I say, I don't know where you all are. (Glad you are getting along. ) But realize that at the Wedding of Cana our Lord did not validize marriage, he recognized it.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/17/2002 7:32:17 PM