text:
Pope: Bishops who mishandled abuse will be held accountable
Today Pope Francis met at the Vatican with six survivors of clerical sexual abuse and expressed his grief at what had been done to them. In his homily at Mass, which he celebrated in his residence, he went beyond deploring the actions of the abusers, as he has done in the past, and pledged to also hold accountable those who mishandled accusations of abuse.
Luke Coppen's report in the Catholic Herald includes the text of Francis's homily, in which he said:
I beg your forgiveness, too, for the sins of omission on the part of Church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse made by family members, as well as by abuse victims themselves. This led to even greater suffering on the part of those who were abused and it endangered other minors who were at risk.
On the other hand, the courage that you and others have shown by speaking up, by telling the truth, was a service of love, since for us it shed light on a terrible darkness in the life of the Church. There is no place in the Church's ministry for those who commit these abuses, and I commit myself not to tolerate harm done to a minor by any individual, whether a cleric or not. All bishops must carry out their pastoral ministry with the utmost care in order to help foster the protection of minors, and they will be held accountable.
The homily is worth reading in full; it's not that long, but in it Francis touches on a lot of the dimensions of the sex-abuse scandal and its fallout that have so far been underacknowledged. His improved messaging is probably thanks to the influence of his Commission for the Protection of Minors -- which he refers to in the homily.
I am counting on the members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.... I ask this support so as to help me ensure that we develop better policies and procedures in the universal Church for the protection of minors and for the training of church personnel in implementing those policies and procedures. We need to do everything in our power to ensure that these sins have no place in the Church.
Gone is the defensiveness and complaining about the church being unfairly targeted. Here he speaks with a sense of how the scandal has damaged the church's credibility. He also touches on the theme of mercy that Cardinal O'Malley said was key to Francis's approach to this matter:
[P]lease pray for me, so that the eyes of my heart will always clearly see the path of merciful love, and that God will grant me the courage to persevere on this path for the good of all children and young people.
Will do.
About the Author
Mollie Wilson O'Reilly is an editor at large and columnist at Commonweal.
71 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
That sounds better, but what matters is how the words are translated into action.
Francis mentions "omissions". One big "omission" to date in the USA is the continued presence of Robert W. Finn in the Kansas City - St Joseph diocese. Francis can rectify this matter by removing Finn from office. This action is long overdue.
I'm from Missourah: show me.
I thought you were from Wisconsin. Maybe that can be the "Show Me, too!" state?
I agree that we haven't arrived yet. But the words are still welcome. It sounds like a commitment. Don't think we've quite heard that before. It's a step in the right direction.
I was impressed that he spent a private half-hour with each of the six victims.
I remember the first day of Francis' papacy - he went to visit the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore and some newspaprers mistakenly reported that he had gone there to dismiss Bernard Law for his covering up of sex abuse ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2997307/posts
I was thrilled. But then it turned out that he had actually had a friendly conversation with him instead ... http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/03/16/pope-francis-controvers...
I won't be able to take what he says about bishops being accountable seriously as long as guys like Law and Mahony and Finn go unpunished.
I see that one of the abuse victims the pope met with asked him to have Cardinal Brady removed. She really made the point that bishops who have covered up in the past should be punished. The pope's response ... Pope Francis responded that "it was difficult to make these changes" :(
Natally, I'm from Wisconsin. Politically and religiously, ah'm frum Missourah!
Yes, it can be difficult to make changes, particularly if you don't try.
Francis, like all senior RCC clerics, is way too much are product of the system. So was John XXIII, but he had the strength of vision to start the changes, drastic though they were.
Francis: the ball is in your court. No more excuses, OK?
"All bishops must carry out their pastoral ministry with the utmost care in order to help foster the protection of minors, and they will be held accountable."
So far so good. But now what?
I am tempted to withhold skepticism once again, but what if I am disappointed again? What if those are just words with no commitment? Isn't it better to continue distrusting anything coming from church authorities regarding sex abuse, rather than take a gamble and risk being proved wrong again? Why should I trust pope Francis on this? I like him very much, and it seems awfully risky to hope that he will follow through - the risk being that he would let us down as well and that I'd lose my affection for him.
Rationally, it also makes no sense to trust this statement, given prior history. We know bishops are not and have never been held accountable for mishandling sex abuse. What does make sense is to not pay much attention to this statement until we begin to see who is being held accountable where, when and how. For now, let's not let our hopes up.
I've made my peace with the idea that clerical sex abuse is handled by secular justice and prevented by individual vigilance, keeping bishops out of the loop because of their ineffectiveness and unaccountability.
It makes me a bit sad to think that pope Francis can say that they "will be held accountable" and believe he has accomplished something by those words when, almost in the same breath, he also says that it is "difficult" to hold Cardinal Brady accountable.
I'm disappointed that some on this blog are now so self righteous. Francis has come further than any pope has on this matter. This is a major step. We should give him time because he has delivered so far. The pressure must be kept on. Yet credit should be given when it is due.
I very much want to believe that Pope Francis will hold bishops , past and present , accountable. My hunch is he may do that for current bishop offenders, but not for past ones. The comments section on the NYT this afternoon about Francis' meeting with survivors, his apology and his promises was quite depressing. Overall, few are buying the promises.
Bishop Accountability praised it as an important step. They did ask that he meet with survivors from his former diocese which he had not done. Choosing the advisors was a herculean step in the right direction. Looks like this whole thing will be driven by that group.
I don't know what is meant by the idea that Francis has done so much on the issue of clergy sex abuse. He's met with survivors, but so did Benedict. He has appointed a commission, but I don't know of any concrete actions they have taken. The one bishop who has been disciplined for actual abuse, Wesolowski, was wanted by civil authorities in Poland and the Vatican refused to extradite him to their criminal investigation, and it's possible the only reason he was even investigated by the Vatican at all was because two UN committies urged it be done.
I was struck by the same thing Mollie was, "Gone is the defensiveness and complaining about the church being unfairly targeted." It's awfully easy for a pope to surround himself with like-minded people, and if it's really true that he's allowed his thinking to evolve then it's a very hopeful sign, on this and on other issues.
I wonder if Francis' problem with taking action is a combinationn of theology and canon law. The Wesolowski case shows he can dismiss a bishop, but he did so only after an extended investigation, and surely the bishop had some right under canon law to defend himself.
I also wonder about the theology of depriving a bishop of his diocese. What's the history of such actions in the Church? I would be very surprised if canon law doesn't protect bishops mightiliy. On the one hand Francis is pushing collegiality -- the right of bishops to participate in the governing of the Church. On the other he is being asked to move unilaterally.
As I see it, the overwhelming necessity at this point is to remove those bishops who have notoriously enabled abusers -- Finn, Brady, et al. It shouldn't be necessary to prove they're guilty in Court before they're arrested, so to speak. (Wesolowski was not arrested before his trial -- he was allowed to walk around Vatican City and Rome. Give the most clearly guilty ones their trial after their arrest as happens in civil law. Remove them, then try them.
Are there any cannon lawyers on the list who could tell us what that lawrequires and disallows? I bet it needs some changing.
Mark Preece --
Yes, the defensiveness seems gone. I think that as much as we love Francis, we have to remember he's operating out of a hugely conservative culure. His early actions in Argentina show that. He never met with victims in Argentina. I think this statement, which is undoubtedly late, shows that he's listening to the victims, and his empathy is powerful. Let's pray that he trusts it.
A hypothetical for Crystal, Ann and anyone else who takes it to be a good idea to remove accused bishops and then try them. Suppose the El Salvadoran military had decided to attack Archbishop Oscar Romero by having someone alledge either that he himself had perpetrated some sexual abuse or that he had covered up some sexual abuse by some priest. Would you support his removal by Rome or some ecclesiastical commission on the basis of such an accusation? Whatever Pope Francis decides to do about this difficult mess, he cannot responsibly presume that all allegations that any government treats as credible are to enjoy the presumption that they are well founded.
I don't know what the pope should do. But I hope that he doesn't listen to simplistic solutions. If your solutions are not simplistic, please say why.
How long do you think it would take for any bishop to be removed from office who publicly called for a review in the church's position on artificial birth control? or stole money?
The bling bishop in Germany was gone in fairly short order but numerous bishops who enabled sexual abuse are still in office, retired in style, or in the case of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, globe trotting on behalf of the pontiff; this despite the existence of these multiple settlement documents with more descriptions than this one:
· McCarrick, wearing just underwear, got into bed with one of the priests: "Bishop McCarrick was sitting on the crotch of Fr. RC As I was watching TV with Fr BL [full names appear in the documents], bishop McCarrick was smiling and laughing and moving his hands all over Fr. RC's body. Bishop McCarrick was touching Fr. C's body, rubbing his hands from head to toe and having a good time, occasionally placing his hands underneath Fr. C's underwear. [I was] feeling very uncomfortable while trying to focus on television, and Fr. B.L., started smiling. As I looked at the bed next to me, Bishop McCarrick was excitedly caressing the full body of Fr. R.C. At that moment, I made eye contact [with] Bishop McCarrick. He smiled at me saying, "Don't worry, you're next." At that moment, I felt the hand of Fr. B.L. rubbing my back and shoulders. I felt sick to my stomach and went under the covers and pretended to sleep."
Difficult? For whom? The pope is an absolute monarch, whose rulings are beyond appeal. Action is not difficult if one has the will to clean house. There is no lack of evidence on www.bishop-accountability.org
Theoretically, the pope is like Congress, the President and and Supreme Court, all in one. He has authority over canon law. He could enact a one-time exception to canon law in order to expedite a bishop's removal, if he wishes to.
I suspect that he wants to give the processes he's put in motion a chance to work. Probably he thinks it's better in the long run if whatever reforms come about are recommended by his commission. He needs to bring the church along with him as he institutes reform (and not only in the area of sexual abuse). If he pursues a reform agenda at the expense of alienating the electors, they'll elect a restorationist in the next conclave. I suspect that is one of the risks he's looking at.
The link above to Wikipedia for Bill Morris was broken. This should be better:
But apparently not ... sorry.
The bishops I'm thinking of ... Brady, Mahony, Finn, Law .... are *known* to have covered up abuse. They have either admitted it or it has come out in depositions, etc. (I can find some links if you want) so this isn't about removing someone on the basis pf what might be questionable allegations.
Crystal, The important thing is to have a fair regime of "due process." So much will depend on the condition of the criminal justice system in the territory of the accused. I have no problem with removing bishops who have admitted covering up abuse. They should either rresign or be forced out. In the U. S. allegations are subject to proof in civil criminal law. Obviously, allegations of sexual abuse of children ought to be handled by the civil authorities. In not a few other nations, there is reason to suspect that their criminal justice systems are anything bujt fair. The pope has to deal with that fact. In my view, he should set up procedures that, as best they can, provide anyone accused with a fair chance to establish his innocence. Until someone is found guilty, he or she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
What I've found problematic about some of your comments on this issue is your apparent willingness to have allegations against clerics immediately publicized, propr to any process to determine the validity of the allegation. There are cases in which priests have suffered unwarranted disgrace.
I realize that the press does report allegations of criminal activity of all sorts. That's unavoidable. But why should bisops, or anyone, not do what they can to protect an accused person until the accusation is proved to be justified? Wouldn't you or I trust that we would be accorded a fair hearing by our family members and friends if we find ourselves accused of some serious wrongdoing?
If folks copy the URL (including the non-hyperlinked text in parentheses) that Ann Schwartz and Greg Stephens provided, and paste it into a browser, the link works.
The case of Bishop Morris illustrates that the Holy See can oust a bishop. But it may be that Morris's case isn't exactly parallel to the cases in question, as Morris seems to have been the subject of a doctrinal investigation. The bishops of whom Francis has now spoken have a different type of issue: presumably they would be charged with the sort of malfeasance that we might think of as criminal activity or criminal negligence. Morris's case seemed to follow a particular process in Rome (which we might agree could have been more transparent, but that's a separate issue). If Francis follows through with the commitment he's now made, a different process might be brought to bear.
I don't know what that process would involve. I don't know if such a process already exists, or if the Holy See would need to create one. One thing we've learned from observing the American bishops grapple with a process for clergy accused of sexual abuse is that the process they've implemented has some significant issues - it needs to be improved/fixed. Hopefully, the Pope's commission will take this into account as it figures out a process for holding bishops accountable.
@ Bernard Dauenhauer: You're still missing the point. This is not about the hierarchs, guilty or not, ajudicated or not. It is not about how feudal oligarchy comes to grip with its endemic corruption.
The problematic elephant in the room hidding under the carpet is still the safety of children, and restoration and justice for the survivors.
I have said it before: How can man rise to the rank of cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires, then get elected pope without the support of the most reactionary traditionalists in the hierarchy? Many, if not most, of whom are seriously implicated and complicit in the greatest scandal to rock the church since the crusades and Inquisition!?!
How could we now expect Bergoglio to so easily turn his back on the very men who just over a year ago elected him pope? It is not logical to entertain such lavish expectations.
If anything Catholics have learned from these decades, even centuries, of scandal and abuse is that the priesthood - the very way we Catholics do priesthood - must be completely reformed and renewed from parish to pope. Nothing less will do.
Papa Francesco is first and foremost the premier politician in the world's oldest all-male feudal oligarchy. I have the hope that he is desperately trying to turn the ancient "barque" around before it falls irrevocably over the cliff into the abyss of history into evolutionary oblivion.
The only segment of the Catholic Church that even has the capacity to reform the priesthood is the People. Hence, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
I don't envy Papa Francesco. I pray for him every day. The odds are stacked against him. My best advice to him: You must be as bold and fearless as Jesus - as did James, Paul and Peter, etc.
Easy for me to say ...
The change of tone is appreciated. It isn't sufficient, but dropping the defensiveness is a necessary condition for things to improve.
What I've found problematic about some of your comments on this issue is your apparent willingness to have allegations against clerics immediately publicized, propr to any process to determine the validity of the allegation. There are cases in which priests have suffered unwarranted disgrace.
Not sure if you're mixing me up with someone elde, but on this thread I've just advocated the removial of bishops who are known, through much evidence and sometimes their own admission, to have covered up sex abuse. Btady, who was the bishop the sex abuse victim meeting with the pope asked to have removed, has admitted being part of a cover up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Brady#Subsequent_revelations_and_... ... I'm asking why the pope won't remove guys like him, when he has removed other bishops like the one who bought an expensive home.
Bernard --
A case such as you propose is not germane. I said that those bishops who are notoriously guilty of either abuse or cover-up should be removed before they can do further damage. Archbishop Romero was not a notorious sinner in that respect. So no, Rome should not remove him merely on the basis of allegations, especially not from enemies. The notorious bishops are analogous to felons who beat others in public view, where the evidence (the beaten bodies and witnesses) are not matters of dispute. They should be arrested immediately and tried later.
Consider the case of the bling bishop -- in that case there was public evendence (the bishops' palatial house) that he was guilty of excessive spending on himself.
It's a matter of public evidence against them, such as their obviously lying depositions and the public fact of priests known to their bishops to be predators having been reassigned to different churches.
And, yes, Jim P. is right -- if Pope Francis acts too fast the next conclave will put in someone who reverses the good that Francis has done. But some principles should not be compromised no matter what -- millstones, etc.
Yes, I'd expect a fair hearing from my family, but I certainly would not expect my family to ignore blatant evidence against me, and I would expect them to accuse me of wrong-doing, and I'd expect them to feel greatly ashamed of my conduct.
Sure, there are rare cases where what seems to be conclusive evidence doesn't really prove guilt. But those cases are rare, and society has to protect itself from apparent criminals. Given a trial which proves them innocent, they'll be released.
"The bishops of whom Francis has now spoken have a different type of issue: presumably they would be charged with the sort of malfeasance that we might think of as criminal activity or criminal negligence."
Jim P. --
What on earth can you possibly *mean* -- "we MIGHT think of as criminal activity or criminal negligence"? That's EXACTLY what we mean -- some of the bishops are CRIMINALS and belong in JAIL. Sure they're entitled to their day in court, but the possibility that the most notorious of them are innocent is infinitesimally small.
It seems you STILL don't get why the laity is still enraged about certain bishops :-(
Ann, do you accept the notion of "due process?" We all have "know without doubt that x ought to be punished. And still we have not infrequently been proven wrong. Due process is slow and cautious, buy design. We ae all prone to "jumping the gun."
Bernard, there is no jumping the gun taking place when the facts are inevidence and the person in question has agreed to those facts. Bishop Finn *did* have due process. The others I mentioned - Brady, Mahony, Law - have not been charged with crimes because what they did was either not at that time considered civily criminal or because it happened so long ago. But for these guys I mentioned, there is no question of what occirred ... it's documented.
It is so naive to believe that the pope has absolute power. Ever heard of the Roman Curia. If the pope had absolute power Ratzinger would have reformed the bank and not let those aroung him sabatoge him the way they did. The Curia stresses the absolute power of the pope when they want their things done. One thing that is non-negotiable is the privilege that cardinals and bishops enjoy. Many of them are working on sabatoging Francis now since he is pushing reform They are just waiting for an opening. Already there is plenty of ranting in right wing circles.
I do believe Francis will do the right thing. But things are not as simple as many of the arm chair quarterbacks here opine.
Sean Brady failed in due attention to the seriousness of the threat posed by a pedophile priest 39 years ago, when he was the priest-secretary at a meeting. He is now a beloved pastor, and should not be dogged by this forever. We in Ireland have already lost some excellent, warm-hearted, intelligent and charismatic bishops such as Brendan Comiskey and Donal Murray, over sensational and insubstantial allegations of negligence, and they are not being replaced by anything better.
Why is the pope impotent over against the curia? Bishops sometimes call the curia "the bureaucracy of nothing": it is possible to reform a mafia, a KGB, a CIA or any well-organized phalanx of bureaucrats, but how does one reform a mess? how does one give shape to jelly?
What on earth can you possibly *mean*
Ann, please unclutch the pearls :-). I just meant that the church may not use that terminology of "criminal activity" or "criminal negligence".
Joseph O,
CFR John XXIII
I think the title is wrong. It's not "Bishops who mishandled abuse will be held accountable" but "Bishops who mishandle abuse will be held accountable". It's not about righting injustice and removing the bishops whose continuing presence in positions of authority is causing scandal but about, at best, planning for the future. It's like fighting the mafia by saying that future mafiosi will be held accountable, but leaving current members of the mafia in place. How that's going to work is anybody's guess.
I can't imagine a secular company keeping on employees who were publically known to have covered up the sex abuse of children and whose firing had been widely called for, as Brady's has.
Reform of the curia
Step 1: Appoint women as heads of specific congregations and diacastries.
Benedict has already said that this is possible. Governance of the organization is not necessarily and aspect of the sacrament of ordination although historically they have been.
Any executive, in any organization has the power of hiring and firing those in executive positions. Bishops are another matter and might be a little more tricky due to ecclesiology and canon law as Ann mentioned. But the curia is literally just the "court"
@ Bernard Dauenhauer: How about some "due process" for the hierarchs that is roughly equivalent to the specious due process that they have afforded to survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation at the hands of their brother bishops and priests???
As Mitt Romney once famously said, "What's sauce for goose is sauce for the gander." Would that be fair to your mind?
Let me just state that I strongly agree with Bernard in his call for due process and transparency, not only in any hypothetical investigations and trials of bishops, but for all church processes. If the cases against some of the bishops named in these comments are "slam dunks", then a well-designed, well-functioning, transparent due process will bring about a just result. And in cases where the facts and circumstances are murkier, these hallmarkes become essential.
Finn had due process and was convicted. Has the pope removed him?
It seems to me that there is a distintion between bishops who are convicted of a crime of covering up abuse, and those who just don't handle it well, but the results ought not differ too much. What should have happened in the case of Bishop Finn is that he shoould have been removed the day he was convicted. Do not [ass Go. Do not collect $200. Just go. Others who have been less than forthcoming but not criminal, like the Archbishop of Minneapolis and his brother bishop of Newark should be subject to the same fate though it might not be automatic. I don't know all the rules, but it seems to me that any member of the epicopacy serves at the pleasure of the Pope, and can be removed by the Pope. One shouldn't have to have been convicted of a crime like Bishop Finn. If Pope Francis is displeased with someone's performance in dealing with this matter, regardless of the law, he can and should remove him. If a bishop is convicted, it seems to me that it should be pretty much automatic. If I were Francis, anyone in that position would be told to resign immediately. For others, I'd give them the opportunity to explain themselves, but it would have to be a pretty compelling explanation.
Jim Pauwels,
Frankly I don't see the need for due process for bishops who mishandled abuse. If the pope thinks they did a poor job, he has the right to replace them. This isn't the same as removing them from the priesthood. What it is is firing Bishop X from a job he isn't performing up to the boss's expectation. Not sure why you need due process for that. he is still a priest. I guess he is still a bishop. he just isn't the Bishop of Bridgeport any more. Maybe you pack him off to a job in the Vatican. Maybe he is the new pastor of St John's Church in Fairfield. Maybe he is appointed auxilliary bishop of Portland Maine. In any case, I think the important thing is that a bishop who did a bad job on this is no longer in his capacity as ordinary of a see. That is very different for a bishop who has been convicted of violating the law in this matter. In my view Bishop Finn should be removed from his see and subject to other penalties as well.
It seems that the relationship between the pope and a diocesan bishop is inneed of some clarification. I'm not competent to provide it, but I'm inclined to think that therre is a theological issue at stake. Again, I'm not competent to state it.
I agree that Bishop Finn ought to resign. His conviction should make it clear to him why he should do so. It does not, though follow automatically from that fact that the pope ought to dismiss him. There may be theological considerations that weigh against the pope's doing so. It's not unlikely that popes, like the rest of us, just have to live with some messes.
Thanks, Jim Pauwels, for your strong words about due process. Absense of due process almost guarantees that some injustice will be perpetrated sooner or later.
Asking about the theology of removing bad bishops seems like a way to complcate things. Imagine Jesus and the disciples .... Jesus learns that one of the disciples has covered up the sex abuse of children by another disciple and consequently more children get abused. What do you think he would do?
Sorry for the B that got away. Bernard, what would a theological reason be for a pope being unable to dismiss a bishop? What branch of theology are you looking at here? Ecclesiology?
But there was nothing that prevented the dismissal of Bishop Morris from Australia or the dismissal of the notorious Bishop of Bling.
According to the article referenced earlier in this thread, Bishop Morris was dismissed pursuant to a process (and let me just repeat that it was a process that, as described, isn't what I would have in mind for due process and transparency).
Ecclesiologically, a bishop who is the ordinary of a diocese is the head of a particular church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Pretty clearly, the Supreme Pontiff has the necessary powers to intervene and remove the head of a particular church, just as he has the necessary powers to appoint a bishop.
I agree that Bishop Finn was convicted in a secular court in which due process prevailed. But Pope Francis was not the judge in that instance and it is not for him to pass sentence in that court; the State of MIssouri presumably employs its own judges for that purpose. Pope Francis' proper sphere is the church and church law. To the best of my knowledge, Bishop Finn has not been brought up on any charges in a church court. If he is, then isn't he entitled to the same rights to which we extend rapists and serial killers in our secular courts: a presumption of innocence, the right to confront his accusers, a speedy trial, adequate legal representation, a public trial, a verdict to be determined by his peers, the right of appeal, and all of the other rights and protections that we extend to those accused of crimes in the US? Frankly, some of the comments here surprise me, particularly in light of the stance taken here by most of the commenters when it is a theologian or a religious sister who is the subject of a church investigation. I assume that nobody wishes to support a double standard.
I'll try to make this my last comment to this post - I've commented too often and I'm now starting to get upset, which never helps. But I just wonder how anyone can defend the "rights" of men like Brady, who admits to taking part in forcing sex abuse victims to swear an oath they would tell no one what had happened to them ... http://colmogorman.com/?p=638 ... and men like Mahony, who told priests he knew to ne pediphiles to go out of state to avoid police invesitgation and prosecution ... http://graphics.latimes.com/mahony/ ... why do you take the side of men like this instead of the victims?
Jim P.,
Tthis situation is very different from somebody being accused of a crime under either civil criminal law or even church law. In those cases, absolutly there shluld be due process. And I would argue it is even different from a theologian accused of being out of step with Church teaching. Here again, that ought to be subject to a right to face the accusers, defend one's position and so on. But in the case of a Bishop who covered up for sexual abuse of children, even if it isn't doesn't rise to the level of a crime as in the Bishop Finn situation, removal ought to be an option, and probably one that gets used reasonably often. It is a different standard and its a different level of penalty, too. the Bishop isn't being de-frocked or losing his license to teach or any such thing. But he has demonstrated that he lacks certain necessary judgement to function in the capacity of pastor and shepard. That isn't a case of defending himself against a criminal accusation, but one of administrative competence, if you will. Those are very different situations. The Pope sees a bishop who has demonstrated that he lacks the judgement to perform his duties effectively as leader of a diocese by virtue of his failure to deal with abusive priest, so he removes that bishop for the good of the local Church. One is a question of law and needs to be open and fair. the other is a question of judgement on the part of the Holy See.
- Hi, Jim D, I'm not sure what I think about your distinction between a formal criminal process and an administrative action. But let's run with it a moment. I take your comment to be more or less in the spirit of, "These guys are incompetent or worse. In the corporate world, they whould and should be fired. There is a big boss in Rome who has the authority to fire them. Therefore, just fire them already!"
In the working world, I'm an at-will employee, which means that my employer can fire me for any reason at all, or no reason in particular. As an employee, I don't possess the rights that I'm calling for for bishops (and for everyone else in the church, for that matter). This observation leads to the following thoughts:
Ecclesiologically, I don't think a bishop is the equivalent of (nor is literally) an at-will employee of a larger organization like I am. He's the head of his own church, which just happens to be in communion with the church of Rome. He's sort of like the Greens at Hobby Lobby: the 'sole( proprietor' of the diocese, at the very peak of the org chart, with no bigger boss over him. For the pope to intervene and remove him wouldn't be like an employer firing an at-will employee; it would be more like the US government intervening in the affairs of a private American company and forcing out a company president. It would be an extraordinary act. Naturally, the parallel isn't perfect, but I'm offering it for consideration. (And btw, this isn't to say that extraordinary acts are never called for. "Extraordinary" doesn't mean "impossible". In the midst of the financial crisis in the last decade, the US government did consider - and in a few cases took - extraordinary interventions into the affairs of private companies.)
Even if the pope does possess "fire the at-will employee" -type authority over bishops, we may ask, "Just because the pope has the authority to yell, 'Off with his head!', is that really how we want the church to work?" I'd rather see members of the church, not excluding bishops, have some basic rights and protections.
- If it was you or I who were in the bishops' shoes and being brought up on charges, wouldn't we want the protections of due process, transparency and all the rest, even if it was a mere administrative action? I know I would. I may be an at-will employee, but that doesn't mean it's my dream preference. I'd rather have as many protections as I can get.
Jim, there's a balance, obviously. How about if Bp Finn, Brady etc. are asked to step asie while the committee works things out? Later, once they have figured out their norms, if it is determined that Bp Finn can safely be given responsibilities and decision-making power, he can always be given a diocese again.
I don't think that so far bishops have been treated overly harshly, so severely in the absence of a legal process that we should be nervous about mistreating them further. Ignoring bishops' right to due process has not exactly caused them much damage this past decade or century or history of christianity, has it? It's a hypothetical possibility, and, I think, a mere excuse to avoid accountability.
We have waited, waited, waited. We have heard words, excuses, statements of good intentions. Enough words.
It was not long ago that Irish bishops, on the aftermath of the scandal, reluctantly offered their resignation, and that Rome refused it quietly - that, after pope Benedict had written his letter to the Irish and used the word "accountability"! That's the Roman standards. It would be stupid to trust words about intended accountability without any kind of accountability itself. That is not credible.
Does pope Francis really want to spend his fragile credit of trust on claiming that bishops will be held accountable and on asking people to believe him, while he is not actually holding any of them accountable?
From pope Benedict's letter:
I recently invited the Irish bishops to a meeting here in Rome to give an account of their handling of these matters in the past [...] Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. [...]. I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God, to grow in solidarity with your people and to deepen your pastoral concern for all the members of your flock.
What fools we would be to trust statements not backed by action. Been there, done that. Done with that.
Rome argues that bishops are apostolic successors in their own sees and support collegiality when it is convenient (e.g. Arguing before the UN that they only have jurisdiction in the Vatican City state).
On the other hand when it comes to mass translations, episcopal policy on zero tolerance, and even ordination of married men, they need their stay.
We have heard the term legal fictions, how about ecclesial fictions. I, for one have rejected Roman propaganda in this regard. I go to mass but at the creed I do not interpret my belief in holy Catholic church, I think of the fellowship of all Christians and obviously this includes inter-communion. Will financially support my parish community but would not want my money to support a criminal, unaccountable, criminal enterprise housed in the Vatican. Just hope the UN can bring this to light.
Jim P., I'm an at-will employee myself and have faced some of the consequences thereof--being downsized and having to scramble to find myself another full-time position. But I think that in making such a case in support of the bishops, you may be missing the point entirely. When will there really be accountability for the bishops who covered up the sexual assault of children by priests? We have been stuck on this groove for years and nothing has happened. The bishop who was just defrocked was found guilty of sexual assault, not of covering it up. I get it that the bishops are the successors of the apostles---but if that gets them off the hook, it gives the apostles a very bad reputation to me. I can see that many people were groomed by the perpetrators, not simply their child victims. And the bishops are part of a group of men who want to be nice to other people and want to see the best, as it were. Consequently, many of the bishops were manipulated by these sexual offenders and maybe if they had truly recognized what was going on, would have acted differently? It's too late for this kind of logic since so many victims have paid and are currently paying the price of the assault on them. One of the things the Holy Father said in his sermon is that some of the victims had "weakened faith" as a consequence of what happened. I would clarify this and say that many of the victims had their capacity for faith blown up by what happened to them. Who is responsible for this? Certainly the perpetrators. But there are bishops, named above, who reassigned the perps and thus gave them a new batch of children to victimize. Bishops who were aware of what was happening. I cannot be concerned with such matters as the securitity of their position as Ordinary's. If a man is throwing children under his spiritual care to the wolves, should he continue to bear the responsibility of spiritual care for others. No.
Jim, there's a balance, obviously. How about if Bp Finn, Brady etc. are asked to step asie while the committee works things out? Later, once they have figured out their norms, if it is determined that Bp Finn can safely be given responsibilities and decision-making power, he can always be given a diocese again.
Claire - sure - that sounds like a process to me (and somewhat similar to the Dallas norms for priests and deacons in the US).
I do understand the impatience and the mistrust. I hope I haven't written anything here (or elsewhere) that would imply that I'm opposed to accountability for bishops*. All I'm calling for here is that the accountability be via a fair, formal, defined process that extends the same protections to bishops that we'd want extended to anyone and everyone.
* Perhaps the one exception is re-opening closed statutes-of-limitations windows; I do oppose that as I believe it's an unjust practice. Let's not talk about it now, though :-)
Hi, Molly, all your points are well-made, and I wouldn't want to dispute any of them. As I noted in my previous comment, I'm all for bishop accountability. I think all we're talking about here is how that accountability is brought about.
US prisons are bursting at the seams with convicted criminals who were accorded all the protections that I'm calling for here, so clearly prosecutors are able to secure convictions in proceedings in which these rights are enforced. Those protections are not a justice-avoidance scheme, and I'm not proposing them in that spirit.
The church's track record for openness and transparency is not pristine. I wouldn't want to see anyone get railroaded, not even a bishop. That's all.
The pope has a significant say in who is made a bishop and where and when he is assigned to his see(s). They aren't implanted in their dioceses by a voice from behind a curtain in Oz. They don't move from see to see by virtue of democratic election for a specified period of time by a House of the Laity, a House of the Clergy and the House of Bishops.
The idea that bishops, as successors to the apostles, are somehow immune from discipline or removal except in the most egregious of circumstances is, at best, specious. Just let an active bishop come out publicly in support of the ordination of married men or women, granting church-sanctioned divorces, ordination of openly gay men, etc. and see how fast he will become a man without a job. He'll be a bishop forever, but at best, an unemployable free agent. That is why bishops don't develop spines with regard to certain sensitive matters until AFTER they are retired.
I fully support what Jim Pauwels has been saying about due process.
One point about the criticism some of you have leveled at Pope Franci and at Pope Benedict. Some of the criticism has strayed from criticizing what one of them has done or what one of them has not, or not yet, done. That's fair. But some have gone on tocall into the credibility of these men. To question someone's credibility is to question their truthfulness, their worthiness to be taken at their word. In my view, this is very bad business, whether in Church matters or in political ones. Vigorous criticism need not get into casting aspersions on an opponent's character. The abominable state of political discourse in the U. S. leads to casting elected officials as contemptible. Far from being constructive, such criticism makes it very hard, if not practically impossible, for opponents or critics to talk with one another in any construtive manner.
I know that some of you have lists of bishops that you think deserve to be removed from their office. I do agree with you in some of these cases. It doesn't follow that because the pope has not done so, even though he has deplored child sex abuse and its coverup, that I am justified in besmirching his character.
Bernard - thanks, and I fully agree with your points about civil discourse.
To question someone's credibility is to question their truthfulness, their worthiness to be taken at their word.
Their truthfulness, not necessarily. Their worthiness to be taken at their word, not exactly. It's not that they're "worthy" or "not worthy", it's whether I believe them or not, when words is all that they have to offer. It's as much about it as it is about them. With respect to words coming from the church hierarchy on the subject of episcopal cover-up of the sex abuse scandal, indeed, I am no longer ready to believe mere words, and it does not matter who they come from. It's not about individual worthiness, truthfulness, etc. Neither is it about "casting aspersions on one's opponent's character" ("opponent"!)
It's more that since the institution cannnot be trusted to do it, we are the ones who are in charge of protecting the youth from sexual abuse. Bishops won't do it: it's our common responsibility, then, and merely swallowing well-meant words about their being held accountable, with no evidence to back it up, would mean relaxing our vigilence by trusting without reason, and we, who are now the ones primarily responsible for the protection of the youth, would be remiss if we did that.
Claire, litmus tests in human relationships are generally unwise. Jane badly wants Jack to do x (something good) right now. Jack acknowledges that doing x would be good, but instead decides to do y (also something good) right now. If doing x amounts to a litmus test of jack's good will, then he fails. If Jane can accept that Jack may well have good reasons for doing y now, then therre is not litmus test, even though Jane may continue to disagree with Jack's decision to do y now instead of doing x now.
Are you administering a litmus test?
litmus tests in human relationships are generally unwise.
Litmus tests in human relationships arise when one of the parties in the relationship has done something that has created mistrust to occurr. That means we need to go back and look at what that "something" is. In this instance that "something" is the deliberate, concealment of crimes that have occurred by clerics to children in their care.
I think that it is completely appropriate to draw boundaries surrounding conduct in the domain of human relationships. If my partner cheats, and we reconcile, it will take some effort before trust is restored and so maybe I may want to have access to cell phone records, maybe I might want some things within the relationship to change until the trust can be re-established. It would be the height of arrogance and naivete for the offending partner to say, I have changed, trust me, all is normal as before.
By analogy, I am not convinced that officials in the church appreciate the impact that this has had on Catholic worlwide and the credibility of Catholics to speak out on any number of social injustices. And, while there is some postive movements from the bishops and even Rome in this respect, it is slow and late in coming.
Pope Francis encourages hope for favorable outcomes to many problems in our Church. But his pledge about bshops being held accountable for protection of children is empty without action. FrANCIS speaks of "ommssions" by leaders. But they were responsible for "commissions" - coverig up and secretly transfering miscreant priests to mnew asignmnts. Canon 1395 mandates punishment for abise of chilren, not transfe nr subjeect him to therapy. Canon law is clear. These bishops "committed" violations of church law, not "ommissions".Francis declares bishops must be good pastors and "will be held accountable.Note that both clauses refer to the future.
Crdinals Law and Regali, poster boys of hiding and transferring abusrs, are now safely enschonsed in the Vatican courtesy of JPII and B16. Bishop Finn is still bishop of KC-St Joseph after his conviction of neglecting his duties to protect childlren in 2008 nd 2011. H signed a contract that he wquldfollow civil law about notifying police about abusing priess. The diocise paoid 10 million in the past and nowhjas nbeen just assessed for $1.1 million for breach of contract the past month. Finn is still bishop of his diovcese.
Msg.HarryJ. Byrne JCD
Msgr. Byrne,
Thanks you very much for the input.
Some folks here seem to think that it would be a violation of due process to remove Bishop Finn and other patently guilty bishops who are still in positions where they can do more crime.. Civil law provides for putting some people in jail before trial. Why would'nt Canon Law? Or does Canon Law provide for immediate removal in some cases?
Could you please tell us something about tha Canon Law?
Please excuse any typos - this iPhone changes spellings even after the message is sent.
Bernard, I think George D has a good analogy. The relation between the church leaders and the people has been damaged. Maybe in your case the sex abuse scandal has not affected your attitude in a lasting manner, but for myself and many others, things have changed. The damage is done and cannot be undone. What was before cannot be again. A new balance must be found. We are working our way towards a different relationship to church authority. It's a new world. One may mourn the age of innocence, when a bishop could say: "I'll make sure everything will be all right, and you don't have to worry, just trust me", and his people took him at his word. But I hope the new order will be better, less blindly trusting, more responsible, more adult, and with more mutual respect.
Claire et al,
I'm in the midst of reading Cardinal Walter Kasper's "Mercy." It is a magnificent work. I cannot rightfully say that my comments here are fully in accord with the richness of his work. Nor do I think that the remarks here of those of you who disagree with what I've said are fully in synch with Kasper's work. What Kasper makes clear is that genuine mercy is in no respect in conflict with justice. At the end of the day, it is properly understood mercy that is fundamental to all efforts properly to apply the rerquirements of justice. As a practical matter, this means that we are never to give up on anyone, bishops, popes, or otherwise, even when we find ourselves required by truthfuulness to criticize their conduct. Similarly, this means that we always recognize the need to be self-critical about the ways in which we articulate our criticisms of others.
But enough of my attempt to summarize Kasper's achievement. As strongly as I can, let me recommend "Mercy." It's accessible to everyone who has commented here.
I am distressed by your headline:
Bishops who mishandled abuse will be held accountable
What you report:
"Today Pope Francis ...pledged to ... hold accountable those who mishandled accusations of abuse."
I note the use of the past tense "mishandled"
What the Pope says about past 'mishandlers':
"I beg ... forgiveness ...for the sins of omission on the part of Church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse"
For those who "did not respond" he asks forgiveness
What the Pope says about accountability:
"All bishops must carry out their pastoral ministry with the utmost care in order to help foster the protection of minors, and they will be held accountable."
Note the phrase "will be". Accountability is to be a future policy
I do not expect that any real accountability will be exacted on Law, McCormack, Mahoney, George, Myers, Egan, Rigali, Flynn, Nienstadt, Walsh, Finn and many others. Their actions provided extended careers to identified clerical pedophiles over whom they had jurisdiction. This resulted in horrific damage to thousands of innocent and defenseless children.
Failure to act on their crimes seems a total dereliction of moral duty.
Your headline will lead many to believe that real justice is about to be served.
My reading of the Pope's words leads me expect otherwise.
Is there any possibility you will address what I consider a substantial misrepresentation?


text:
4 Apr 2013 3:44 AM #1
Customizing themes in Sencha GXT 3.0 X(Applying themes to the GXT 3.0X applications)
Hi all,
Can any one provide me some heads up or some information in customizing the themes in GXT 3.0.
Customizing means how can we apply only colors to the component background instead of maintaining static images with different states(Select state, over state, Inactive state etc.,)
I tried with extracting the jar file and make my changes to various styles and and adding those files back to the jar and importing jar to my application and checking whether I made appropriate change or not. This is taking a hell lot of time as it is involving lot of permutations to be executed.
And one more important thing is that their are static images that are used as borders(top, left, right and bottom) so if I change the background color of a component it will applied only to the background of of the text that I'm displaying no to the entire background of the component because of above statement(maintaining static images). In case of a text button it is even more worse as their is some layer or static images being displayed behind the text on the button, If I apply background-color property it applies behind that layer(I can see the color that I had applied from behind the rounded corners of the button I had created).
Following a simple issue what I'm trying to explain above.
Attachment 42903
Beside the text(Dashboard) in the tab panel are the static images that are applied using CSS by the framework.
Thanks in advance.
4 Apr 2013 1:47 PM #2
The short version is that if you want to use the GXT TextButton class, and style it to your own specific needs, then you need to completely style it. One option is to start with the built in themeing, and change in one piece at a time. Another is to use one of the GWT button classes, and have a simpler dom to work with, and not worry about cross browser differences.
Longer answer, assuming you stick with GXT buttons:
At present, the button is styled by 9 images, in the typical 9-box pattern:
top-left | top-center | top-right ------------+---------------+------------- middle-left | middle-center | middle-right ------------+---------------+------------- bottom-left | bottom-center | bottom-right
Nine images for each button. Now multiple that by three possible states that a button can be in - normal, over (or focused), and active (or toggled) gives us 27 different images that need to be customized.
If all browsers supported alpha transparency, we could make these images transparent and let background-color set a color that could bleed through - this wouldn't be quite perfect (rounded corners again), but we could get close.
We're working on a theme builder that will allow more control over styles and will generate images for the browsers that need it, and possibly use CSS3 for for those that can support it.
In the mean time, as I said, if you want the same button api/lookandfeel/cross browser consistency that gxt's TextButton offers, making the 9-box images is really the way to do it. Editing those appearances gives you as much control as possible as to how any given widget or cell should be rendered. You don't need to use images at all, and can even use your own html structure, such as just drawing a <button> and giving it some css styling.
9 Apr 2013 5:59 AM #3
Thanks Colin for the reply.
Is that the only way we can apply styles to GXT components since it will be a lot of hectic work to go that way round?
When will be theme builder is being released?
3 Aug 2013 1:43 AM #4
graphical design
Hello Colin,
Styling is getting more and more important for our customers... What are your recommendations for graphic adjustments regarding to GXT3 programs? We want to outsource this to graphical designers, who want to know the possibilities and procedures for this.
"We're working on a theme builder"
Is there already a demo or something?
Roland Beuker

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Main Content
Years and years of experience has turned you into a fighting machine! A pro like you can't sport just any pair of shorts; you need something that looks great while also improving your performance. The Metal Mulisha Revelation II fight shorts can definitely do that! They feature versatile 4-way stretch fabric, a rash-resistant construction and MM graphics that will surely intimidate your competitors!
- 4-Way stretch
- 78% Polyester/22% Elastane
- Foldover waistband with D-ring drawcord inside
- Hook and loop closure fly with lycra gusset
- Imported
- Inseam on size 30 measures approximately 10"
- Left side pocket with hook and loop fastener
- Quality embroidery
- Rash-resistant no-inseam construction
- Sewn-in bungee lanyard
- Sublimated graphics
- Imported
- Brand: Metal Mulisha
Other Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Bill O'Reilly: "Christianity is a philosophy not a religion."
Speaking of conservative Catholics, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, like Bill Donohue, loves Christmas because it is a chance to pick ugly public fights. Which, really, is what the season is all about.But his on-air dust-up with American Atheists' Dave Silverman not only made Silverman look good but it forced O'Reilly onto some treacherous ground, I thought, as he made statements like:
"It's a fact that Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a philosophy."
"Roman Catholicism is a religion," he says."Judaism is a religion." But Christianity -- nope.Interestingly, Pope Benedict has also insisted that Christianity is not a religion; rather, it is the truth, and Catholicism is simply the necessary "container" (I forget his exact term) for that truth.But that exalts Christianity, whereas O'Reilly seems to diminish Christianity, as well as leaving it vulnerable to exclusion from the public square on all sorts of levels -- after all, there are no constitutional protections for philosophies, are there?I think the secularists' "war on Christmas" displays is profoundly silly, and sad. But emptying Christmas of any religious meaning to try to win a round in that battle seems self-defeating.In any event, is Christianity just a philosophy and not a religion? Or is O'Reilly preaching heresy here? "Hello, Cardinal Mueller...?"Mediaite has the story. Below is the video of the exchange.
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.
20 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
"...after all, there are no constitutional protections for philosophies, are there?"There are no constitutional exclusions either.
I liked the take at Comedy Central's Indecision blog: "It's also a fact that Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand the definition of the word 'fact' any better than he understands the definitions of the words 'religion' or 'philosophy.'"
Perhaps he's harking back to an early use. In the patristic era, Christianity was often referred to as a "philosophy," indeed as the true "philosophy." That, of course, was prior to the scholasticizing (academicizing) of philosophy, when it was still considered primarily as a "way of life," as Pierre Hadot calls it in a remarkable series of essays and books. But is O'Reilly likely to have read Hadot?
Joe K, you are being wonderfully charitable. But it is an interesting point, one I am in sympathy with -- Christianity as a way of being, a way of life, as well as a way of believing? I still think it's a religion, and that's not such a bad thing. "Spiritual but not religious" is not my motto.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam all are religions. All have various divisions and "schools". If O'Reilly wants to call Catholicism a religion and Christianity a philosophy, then Orthodox Judaism is a religion and Judaism is a philosophy; Shiite Islam is a religion, and Islam is a philosophy; and so on.I don't think these are the commonly understood definitions of these terms.Inasmuch as atheism makes assertions about divine beings (that there are none) and an afterlife (there isn't one), and inasmuch as atheism could be profoundly influential on how its adherents live their lives, maybe it is a religion, too.
In Islam, the word "deen" refers to faith practices that establish the relationship with God, and that word we translate into English as "religion." But it would be wrong to use the word "deen" to refer to Islam itself, as a system of beliefs. A similar thing happens in medieval Christianity. The "virtue of religion" refers to the habit of worship or other actions in service of God (Summa Theologia II-II.81.2, c), and Aquinas even collapses all the Jewish rituals into "exterior acts of the virtue of religion."Medieval Christians sometimes used a different word to refer to revealed system of ideas--"lex," or law. Judaism could be the "Law of Moses," Islam the "Law of Muhammad," Christianity the "law of Christ." Apologists and intellectuals from all three argued that their system of beliefs was in accord with Hellenistic philosophy--such as Aquinas, or the Mutazila philosophers in Islam.The association of "religion" with practices, as distinct from intellectual beliefs, has pedigree. I'm not sure that it actually achieves what Mr. O'Reilly was aiming at, though.
Wait till Stephen Colbert gets a hold of this one. Truthiness indeed.
If I remember correctly, even before followers of Christ were tagged with the name "Christians," and long before the terms Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. arose, those who lived according to Christs message were following the Way. Christ had said: I am the way and the truth and the life. (John 14:16). And Saul, before he became Paul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. (Acts 9:1-2) This emphasis on incorporating Christ and His teachings into all facets of how one lives ones life is also reflected in the first sentence in the Didache (attributed to the late first century), which reads: There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and the difference between these two ways is great. Perhaps it would have been better for OReilly to have avoided the word philosophy, which has a different connotation in our time, and to have emphasized Christianity as an all-encompassing guide for both temporal and eternal life.
And here I have thought the Bill O'Reilly and Bill Donahue were both speaking ex cathedra.
Wonderful insights and questions, but I take "Chrisitanity" to be making truth claims about the person of Jesus of Nazareth Therefore involving beliefs and not just life-styles or a Christendom sense) and then attempting to follow his "way" based on those convictions. How can that not be a religion unless we use the words in a more ambiguos or pre- scholastic way. Is Buddhism also a philosophy? Hinduism? Shintoism? Wiccan-ism? Native American expressions?
David Gibson, this is for you:http://www.theonion.com/articles/priest-religious-but-not-really-spiritu...)
"And here I have thought the Bill OReilly and Bill Donahue were both speaking ex cathedra."Jim,They are if ex cathedra means "from the seat (of one's pants)."
One thing Silverman did was to expose O'Reilly as the arrogant totalitarian that he is.
"...Christianity as a way of being..."David G. --Until I read that I had always thought of the expression "Christianity as the way" as meaning a set of principles or rules -- a "path" as William Collier puts it -- which leads to happiness/fulfillment/a good life. Your expression seems to men that Christianity is a sort of style of living. I suppose that styles have rules, but they're not really exactly the same as rules. Neither are paths necessarily.Could you tell us more about what you have in mind?
In a world where "religion" is viewed as a dirty word, I understand the Christian attempt to flee the word.But Christianity is a religion. There is no way around it. Unless you want to start playing word games.http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2012/11/you-need-to-lose-your-religion...
Obviously, what O'Reilly was trying to do was to argue for Christmas displays in the public square. And in doing so, he argued that Christianity was a philosophy and therefore was not problematic to display in the public square supported by the state (municipal, state, or federal).On the merits of whether Christianity is a religion or philosophy, I think that clearly according to most all definitions, Christianity would be considered a religion.But the issue was public displays of Christmas and he changed the defintion. BTW, that is exactly what John Roberts did in the Obamacare hearing in the supreme court. He said that the mandatory provision of buying insurance was a tax which therefore made it consitutional. It was a bit of sophistry to kick it back to the legislature just like O'Reilly's statement was a bit of sophistry to allow for Christmas displays in public.This whole debate is tiresome though. I have zero sympathy for atheists who pretend that they are offended by Christmas displays and holidays. I also had zero sympathy for the protesters who said a mosque should not be built by the twin towers. I also had zero sympathy for the Taliban when they blew up the rock carvings of Buddha in Afghanistan.We are, or should be, an open and tolerant society and should be inclusive of all expressions of culture and religion. Christmas is rooted in the nativity (notwithstanding the debates around the historicity of that event). It has at least a 1,000 year tradition in a large part of the globe. for 990 years there has been no outcry against it. Most of the outcry comes from people in the USA. Americans would do well to concentrate on the virtues of harmony and community and less on the virtues of individualism and individual rights.And as for the Catholic contribution to this debate, on this board, most Catholics rightly were concerned with Ryan's embrace of Ayn Rand and her brand of individualism. Catholicism has been wary of individualism to the exclusion of community. So bottom line, as they say on the internet....ignore the trolls. These people going around claiming that they are "offended" by Christmas displays in public are trolls.
George D,It would probably be easier for some people "to concentrate on the virtues of harmony and community" if for the last thousand yearsI'm being hamonious here by arbitrarily excluding the first thousandcertain Christians had not used the power of the state to force their beliefs on others, sometimes hacking and burning the bodies even of other Christians for heresy. The first clause of the First Amendment is the fruit of the Founders' meditation on that horrific experience.Of course, nativity displays are harmless in themselves. It is the narrow minds and black hearts of citizens that make them troublesome on public sites. Luckily, there is still plenty of private space on which to set them up.
John:I think that there is no question that the American model of religion and public life is going to be the model moving forward for the West for the long foreseeable future. I think that the Church has recognized this fact (and did repent of its history with respect to persecution in the Memory and Reconciliation) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_... was an important document.I doubt, though, that the presence of nativity scenes on public spaces equates to an endorsement of religion though although that is an arguable point.
I suggest FOX news have a crche on the steps of every building they own .. and then shut up..
Just having watched a lecture series on Plato's Republic (actually, almost done watching it) I got the notion that perhaps philosophers could have created Christianity as a system of control. I haven't taken this idea to far yet, just a hunch so far. Until then, I'll continue to follow it. Turns out it's virtually impossible to disprove the existence of God.


text:
Duracell AAA 6 Pack Pre Charged Rechargeable Stay Charged 800mAh AAA Batteries for $8.95 + free shipping
Manufacturer: Duracell
Model #:DX24B6TB
List Price:24.99
Not only will you get hundreds of uses out of each Duracell StayCharged Rechargeable AAA battery, but they stay charged longer so you can recharge less. These powerful NiMH batteries are ideally suited for high-drain or frequently used devices. Recharge hundreds of times and save hundreds of dollars.
7 Comments add a comment
Link takes me to an empty eBay page.
@hcoots: derp...opposite for me
From ebay?? Isn't that kinda sketchy?
Weird, blank page still, different browser as well. Ahhh well.
I'm getting $13.50 now.
@first2summit: Shows 8.95$ for me.
800ma batteries aren't going to last very long, though. The standard ones now seem to be 2000ma.
Good reviews on Amazon:
800 mAh is standard for LSD (low self-discharge) AAAs (this offer). 2,000 is standard for LSD AAs.


text:
I'm looking to learn how to write good short stories, what are some good instruction manuals I should use to learn from?
I like the Modern Library Writer's Workshop by Stephen Koch. It's not limited to Short Stories, it covers fiction in general. But it's small and approachable and full of helpful ideas.
This one's kind of "out there", but unbeatable if you'd like to take the organic, from-the-heart, not-the-head kind of approach: Robert Olen Butler's From Where You Dream: The Process of Writing Fiction. Rather than old-fashioned, technique-based instruction, Butler really encourages you to go to your "dream space" (almost becoming the character) to the point where you are walking around in your fictional world. You will soon "discover", he says, what is supposed to naturally happen next.
Another excellent one, which is more practical and down-to-earth: Ron Carlson Writes a Story. I love this one not just because it's a short read, but because Carlson actually takes you through pretty much the exact thought process he used to write one of his most popular stories. He pauses and tells you what he was thinking at each moment of the story-writing process, and tells you where he added content, debated about character choices, etc. One of the most unique elements of this book though, is that he also gives tips about your external environment, not just the story itself. He tells you how he got rid of distractions, set himself up in a good place to begin writing, and importantly, when he let himself take a break.
For writing short stories try this one:
I also found it really helpful to read a lot of short stories. Two anthologies I really liked were:
A couple of authors whose short stories I found inspirational were:
For more recent short stories you can pick up the last couple years of "Best American Short Stories" - which collects the best short stories by year.
Two more suggestions:
Rick DiMarinis -- The Art & Craft of the Short Story
Rust Hills -- Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular
protected by Neil Fein♦ Dec 23 '13 at 4:03
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Recent comments
Recent posts
Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
Respectul Insolence
Science-Based Medicine
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Edzard Ernst
- Promoting Rhino horn as medicine at an Australian university: Has this contributed to the exponential rise in Rhino poaching? July 30, 2016
- Ansbach suicide-bomber had alternative treatments for severe psychological trauma July 29, 2016
- Does the tolerance of extreme quackery make acupuncturists quacks? July 28, 2016
- A pathologist examines: cancer and fungus
- Alternative Medicine and Cancer
- Ars GeriatriCare (Dutch)
- Cancer Research UK
- Cancer Survival in Europe
- Cryptocheilus medical blog (Dutch)
- Dr. Len's Cancer Blog
- EBM-first: What alternative health practitioners might not tell you
- Medbunker blogspot (Italian)
- My Malignant Melanoma
- Psiram/Esowatch (German)
- Quackwatch
- Science-Based Medicine
Top Posts
acupuncture alternative cancer treatment alternative medicine antisemitic baking soda biologie totale boosting breast cancer cam Cancer candida candida albicans carcinoma Caroline Markolin cat scan chemo chemotherapy chief rabbi chiropractic claude sabbah corinne thos Dirk Hamer echinacea evidence evidence-based medicine fungus garlic Germanische Neue Medizin German Medicine German New Medicine GNM götz Hamer HBOT Health fraud holistic homeopathy hoxsey therapy hulda clarck images immune system iscador iwan götz jewish conspiracy libel manual therapy medecine nouvelle meta medicine metametrix metastases Michaeala Jakubczyk mistletoe naturopathy nouvelle medécine olivia pilhar osteopathy personality Philosophy of science positive thinking psychological aspects and cancer quackery rife Ryke Geerd Hamer santegod schneerson science Simoncini sodium bicarbonate supplements tony isaacs total biology Tullio Simoncini viscum album vitamins zapper


text:
Similar to PC having multiple OS in which you can select during boot up. I was wondering, for the time being, is it possible to have two android version in a android device?
Example: A android device with both android 2.2 and 4.0 installed. During boot up, user can select which one they wish to choose.
So, suppose there is a Apps that cannot be run on android 4, I can just switch to android 2.2. Same goes as vice-versa - if an apps can only be run on android 4, I just switch to android 4.


text:
It is always difficult to describe people in just a few words. While we attempt to look at the lives of the Chinese here, it is important to remember that these perspectives are from people studying abroad. It is essential to keep an open mind when looking at cultures other than one's own. We may not agree with everything they do, but as guests in their countries, we should respect their customs and beliefs.
Lines are usually formed haphazardly and many students become frustrated when the locals "cut the line." Our advice is to be patient.
The Chinese are also very strict about other table manners when they are eating with others. When pouring tea, you must always pour tea for your guests before pouring for yourself.
Like other provinces of China, the Shanghainese speak their own dialect. Many people do speak Mandarin, but you will hear differences in their accents. Travel throughout Shanghai and explore as many aspects of the city as you possibly can.
One of the most popular hobbies in China is Tai Chi Quan ( 太極拳 ). Tai Chi is an internal martial art which promotes health and longevity. Early in the morning, people of all ages gather outside in large groups to exercise. They usually meet at parks and listen to the radio, which leads them through slow, synchronized moves. Chinese students often comment that foreigners think all Chinese people practice martial arts. This is a common misconception study abroad students should recognize. In the case of Tai Chi, for example, many people do practice it, but most of the people at parks in the morning are older Chinese men and women.


text:
No comments posted. |E-mail|Print | Text Size | Bookmark
Crusaders' rally ruins upset bid by Red Raiders
WATERBURY — With just 10 minutes left Thursday night between Holy Cross and Torrington, the Red Raiders had the ball and the Crusaders on their heels. Cross' six-point lead at Municipal Stadium was a precarious one after its third lost fumble of the night.
But the young Raiders made two crucial errors over the next few minutes to give Holy Cross two insurance scores and an eventual 41-21 victory.
"We had to wake up," Crusaders captain Bryan Burnette said. "It wasn't a joke anymore."
After Torrington's Nick Paniati stripped Mike DiMaria to give the Red Raiders a possession at their own 40-yard line, they failed to move the ball and set up for a punt at the 39. Punter Nate Manchester went to a knee to field a low snap, which marked him down at his own 27.
On the next play, Cross quarterback Joe Kalosky rolled left and found Trai Weaver amid triple coverage for the touchdown. The score gave Holy Cross (5-2) a 33-21 lead with 8:42 remaining.
"We had to score," Kalosky said. "Otherwise, we would have let them hang around and it could have ended up like the Derby game (a 19-14 loss)."
Torrington (0-7) started its ensuing possession on its own 43, but on third-and-15, another bad snap to quarterback Connor Finn resulted in a recovery by Cross' Gerron Pendarvis at the 20. Kalosky later punched in a score on a 3-yard sneak to make it a secure 41-21 lead with 6:50 left.
"Turnovers will (change momentum), and you're always looking for that," Holy Cross coach Mike Giampetruzzi said. "The last few weeks, we've had some of them. You have to take advantage and score, and we did that."
For Torrington coach Gaitan Rodriguez, the three-minute sequence was the same painful story he's seen a few times this season with his youthful squad.
"Every week there are moments in the game when we feel it and we're riding high," Rodriguez said. "It's either a down-and-distance we can't convert or a fumble or something, but it's just a sign of our young team."
His young team put Holy Cross on the ropes minutes after the Crusaders appeared to take control of the game on a 13-yard touchdown pass from Kalosky to Breonte Nealy midway through the third quarter.
Torrington faced a third-and-25 at its own 26. Finn, a sophomore, rolled out of pressure and launched a deep pass to sophomore tight end Nate Bresson, who fought off Justin Witherspoon and powered down the right sideline for a touchdown.
"That's a play he wouldn't have made the first week," Rodriguez said of Finn's pass, which cut Torrington's deficit to 27-14 with 3:36 remaining in the third. "That's his maturation as a quarterback in things that he sees."
The Raiders defense forced a three-and-out, and it only took Finn's offense two plays to score again. He hooked up with Zack Mancini on passes of 17 and 28 yards to make it a 27-21 game with 1:54 left in the quarter.
"They play hard every single snap, and I knew it was going to be this way," Giampetruzzi said. "With the few big plays they made, they were in it. You can't let a team like that hang around."
Finn finished 19-of-36 for 271 yards and an interception. Bresson (five catches, 104 yards) and Desmond Langs (8-103) both had big nights for Torrington.
"Their passing game was very good," Burnette said of Torrington, which outgained Holy Cross, 341-313. "Desmond Langs had a big game and stepped up."
Pendarvis scored on two short touchdown runs in the second quarter, and Kalosky was 7-of-16 for 179 yards. He had to make most of Cross' big plays after starting running back Drew Bialoglowy suffered a leg injury on the first series.
"I'd rather have a balanced attack because it opens up the pass," Kalosky said. "But I like the pressure. It's kind of fun."
Reader Comments
The following are comments from online readers like you. In no way do they represent the view of The Republican-American.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
Registered users comments will be posted automatically.
All other comments will be reviewed by our staff before appearing on the Web site.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Redzone News
Redzone Videos
Redzone Blog
XML_Parser: undefined entity at XML input line 8:18
Photo Galleries


text:
Macauley begins by suggesting that Michelle Obamas speech was the evenings most valuable corrective and approvingly quotes one of her lines: My husband and I believe firmly that arts education develops innovative thinkers. He then states that he wishes shed saved that line for another occasion because Ballet Theaters spring season at the Metropolitan Opera House tends to be ballet at its most conformist, nowhere more so than in its opening-night jamboree. What point is he trying to make here? Is it that the conventionality of the evenings program belied the First Ladys contention that arts education develops the ability to think innovatively? Or is it that only innovative art or conventional art presented innovatively will produce innovative thinkers? Or is it that the gala wasn't arts educational enough?
Anyway, thats not whats bugging me. Heres the quote that set me off:
Everything else was, as is usual with Ballet Theaters spring gala, a preview of the seasons coming attractions. If only the company would invest in a compère* for these galas to explain whats what and whos who. Sure, we could all switch on our cellphones LCDs to see in the program book that the item after The Procession was from Act II of La Sylphide, but wouldnt most of the audience have been happier if someone had informed us charmingly that this ballet is set in the Scotland that Walter Scott made Romantic? That it is the oldest choreography in international repertory (1836)? That this excerpt shows the enchanting moment when the hero, James, finds that the Sylphide to whom he has lost his heart is not the worlds only sylph but one of many? And that, unlike the lost 1832 original Parisian Sylphide and the many other 19th-century ballets that followed, this one shows the hero dancing the same steps alongside his beloved and her companions?
These facts arent arcane. They would deepen anybodys pleasure in this Sylphide scene, which, out of context, may look more quaint than it is.
Gala audiences in my experience dont mind being educated. Rather than being treated as if they know all they need to, they love being given things to look for. The same compère could have pointed out how the famous pas de deux from Swan Lake, Act II (in a version correctly described in the program as after Lev Ivanovs choreography), is a late-Romantic variation on the original Sylphide idea. Here the princely hero is a nondancing cavalier amid the many swan-maidens who resemble the one with whom he is falling in love. (Though he dances elsewhere in the ballet, he does not in the presence of these enchanted beings.)
Sounds like hes auditioning for that MC gig! He goes on to observe that
Were in a recession that may prove a depression. One way for ballet to survive is to keep shoveling out ever more fouetté turns and grandes pirouettes and multiple entrechat-six and circuits of turns or jumps on the assumption that audiences cant get enough of them. Another is for those in charge to help audiences become more intelligently interested. Which will Ballet Theater take?
Is he suggesting that ballet can survive during a recession by providing handy, informative wall plaques just like the museums or by turning galas into lecture-demos? I agree that ballet needs an audience that demands more than circus stunts. I also agree that an audience with an informed taste is a good thing to have, but Macauley seems to be advocating the cultivation of a kind of geeky art historical sensibility that I wouldnt consider a necessary component to the enjoyment of art.
Now, Ill confess to being a geek of the first order: my little nerd heart quickens at the sight of a wall plaque. (I loved the little wall plaques McCauley scattered around his review, too.) But theres nothing wrong with walking into a museum with the expectation that one can just wander around and look at the paintings and enjoy them (or not, as the case may be) without having done any homework. Or, to put it another way: youll enjoy a baseball game more if you know the rules, but you dont need to know that baseball evolved from the Tudor sport of rounders to have a good time. You just need a good game to watch. Shouldnt ballet focus on putting on a good show? Isnt that what will pull the audience in and isnt also what will teach them how to look?
Consider McCauleys little La Sylphide disquisition: I dont think the audience needs to know that unlike the lost 1832 original Parisian Sylphide and the many other 19th-century ballets that followed, this one shows the hero dancing the same steps alongside his beloved and her companions. A "dance literate" audience should be able to see that the men and women are dancing the same steps and should be able to perceive on some level that it's different in its theatrical and emotional effect than men and women dancing different steps, but it shouldnt have to be told this by an MC and it shouldn't have to know about the lost 1832 Parisian version. Would knowing about Walter Scott's romanticized Scotland really deepen the audience's pleasure in the scene? (It's charming that Macauley thinks that the audience would have a clue about Walter Scott in the first place.) And so what if it seems quaint? People pay good money and travel great distances to immerse themselves in quaint. I'm not too proud to admit that I like a dollop of quaint myself every now and then.
Anyway, I dont how one gets an audience to see better--to be "dance literate"--but I dont think MCs at galas are the way to go. I'm not convinced that the kind of edification that Macauley proposes will engender a wave of innovative thinking, either, and I'm even less convinced that it will pack the houses.
So BT'ers, what do you think: do audiences need to be "dance literate" or "ballet literate" and if so, what do ballet companies need to do to foster that literacy? What is "ballet literacy" anyway, and is it something one is conscious of having? If you don't know efface from croise from ecarte, or who Bournonville was, or about the Romantic fascination with enchanted young women, can you still be literate? Is Macauley on to something in his review?
*I had to look this up. From the American Heritage Dictionary: The master of ceremonies as of a television entertainment program or a variety show.


text:
Extra-wide, 1.5" webbing on this collar means it will stand out, even on bushy-haired breeds. The Wide Clip Collar by RC Pet is adjustable for a perfect fit and features 250-lb break strength for extra durability. Collar is constructed of thick nylon webbing with stylish woven-tape patterns sewn on so you can break free from solid color collars. Wide Clip Collar features a plastic quick clip buckle and a heavy-duty, nickel-plated D-ring for leash attachment. Reflective patch on collar improves nighttime visibility. Collars are machine washable.
Matching Leash features 1.5" wide webbing and is offered in short-control 2 ft length to keep your dog closer. Features a durable swivel hook in patterns that match the collar.
Please specify Medium Collar (12" to 20" neck) or Large Collar (15" to 25" neck).
Please specify pattern for collar and lead: Hexacomb, Pitter Patter Pink, Pitter Patter Chocolate, Urban Woodsman, or Vogue (all patterns not available in both styles).
Please click on "More Information" for care instructions.


text:
Casio Accessories
- Best Sellers
- Price Drop
- Open Box Gear
- Top Rated
Results 1 - 11 of 11 matches
Price DropCasio Privia Gig Bag
This protective carrying case for Privia Pianos works with the following models: PX-110, PX-310, and PX-555.$59.95Compare Compare Now site1prod545910
Top Rated$150.00Compare Compare Now site1prodH88919
Best SellerCasio Keyboard X-Stand
Double-braced keyboard stand for extra strength.<BR/>$24.00Compare Compare Now site1prod454523
Best Seller$17.95Compare Compare Now site1prodJ27939
- 1 Open Box:
- $15.80
Best Seller$119.99Compare Compare Now site1prodH79253
- 1 Open Box:
- $100.32
Best Seller$74.99Compare Compare Now site1prodH88918
Top RatedCasio SP32 Pedal Assembly
The Casio SP-32 pedal provides simulates half-damper pedal position.$74.99Compare Compare Now site1prod620781
- 1 Open Box:
- $65.99
$99.00Compare Compare Now site1prod620782
- 1 Open Box:
- $71.99
Best SellerCasio ARST X Stand
Easily adjusts to six different playing heights.$21.99Compare Compare Now site1prodH65830
- 1 Open Box:
- $18.39
Casio ARBench X style folding bench
Comfortable and easily folded for storage or transport.$39.99Compare Compare Now site1prodH65834
- 1 Open Box:
- $74.79
As a performer who uses a keyboard to express yourself musically, you know it takes more than just a great instrument to get your melody across. It also takes quality accessories to ensure that you're going to be able to be heard loud and clear, whether you're practicing with the band, recording in the studio, or performing live. Because accessories play such an important role in completing your setup, it only makes sense that you'd want to get yours from a company with the trust and respect of the music industry. That's where Casio comes into the picture. With decades of experience producing fantastic instruments and equally impressive accessories, they have a keen sense of exactly the things that any musician will need to sound their best.
Casio knows that no two musicians are entirely alike, which is why they've crafted a solid variety of accessories that can suit the needs of any performer. For anyone who is not entirely sure which accessory is right for them, may we suggest you start by checking out our best sellers? For example, the Casio Stand and 3-Pedal Bundle is an ideal choice for any performer who uses the Privia PX-150 & PX-350 Keyboards. Not only can this stand boost the height of your instrument, it also offers the convenience of a damper, a soft, and a sustain pedal. By offering a stable and secure perch for your piano or keyboard, this stand is absolutely essential for your setup.
Another great accessory available here from Casio, especially if you're looking for a more economical stand, is the Keyboard X-Stand. This classic stand is double braced for added strength, and is a breeze to setup and use anywhere you take your keys. Able to support 150 pounds, this stand is definitely worth a look.
And these are only two of the Casio accessories available here. Whether you're looking for a stand, sustain pedals, a gig bag, or something else entirely, you can be confident that Casio has you and your needs covered.