Accepting Responsibility

[Ahab]

You are not singling out the Catholic Church? What other church did you name as being guilty of slavery? Because "someone is at fault", and you went to Juvi, and a friend from Wales feels mistreated when he was a child, you get to accuse the Catholic Church of slavery?

At what point would you consider something to be the fault of the "Catholic church" ? When a Pope did something unrighteous, himself, would you say that was the Catholic church acting? How about if a Pope put someone else in charge of something and that person used the Pope's authority to do something unrighteous? At what point would it go from the actions of an individual, or only a few individuals, to the actions of a whole group of people, like a church/kingdom/country including everyone associated with it?

If I were you I'd be more concerned with determining if the act was unrighteous or righteous, defending it only if it was righteous. Then, if it was something unrighteous I'd think you'd want to see if you might also be guilty by association. And then if you were, I'd think you'd want to make reparations.

For the records, I am profoundly sorrowful for any unrighteous act any person on this planet has ever committed, and I pledge my whole heart to be a better person, personally. I've made lots of mistakes of my own, some of which have effected other people associated with me, and I am sincerely sorry for all the bad things I and other people have done. I know it doesn't sound like a lot to just say I'm sorry, and the words alone don't really do a whole lot. The hard part is to be a better person, both for myself and all others on this planet.

We each affect each other by all the bad things we do, and I thank God for what he offers to all of us through his grace and our repentance. No excuses are ever good enough, and an apology isn't a hard thing to offer.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Ahab

[halconero]

Double

Edited February 22, 2013 by halconero

[halconero]

Tell that to Mitt Romney.

[halconero]

The Canadian Government did something similar in apologizing to all those First Nations (Native Americans) placed in residential schools where they were abused for speaking any language but English (and somethings French) or practicing other traditions. Sometimes the abuse had no reason (not that abuse w/ reason is a good thing).

[3DOP]

Ahab

At what point would you consider something to be the fault of the "Catholic church" ? When a Pope did something unrighteous, himself, would you say that was the Catholic church acting? How about if a Pope put someone else in charge of something and that person used the Pope's authority to do something unrighteous? At what point would it go from the actions of an individual, or only a few individuals, to the actions of a whole group of people, like a church/kingdom/country including everyone associated with it?

3DOP

Those are fair questions. I gave some hints above about what would amount to complicity on the part of the church. See post #15:

I guess I just don't quite get how the Catholic Church gets to be convicted of guilt for this even if all of the allegations are true. In what way is the use of slave labor compatible with the teachings of the Catholic faith? Has there been any incriminating evidence showing that Rome has been encouraging the slavery? Do the sisters, like some Nazi death camp guard, blame higher authorities saying they were carrying out commands that came from above? Did the Irish bishops knowingly support what they knew had become slavery, or did they still think it was a reform oriented institution? These seem like necessary questions to answer before we accuse the Catholic Church of complicity in this.

Ahab

If I were you I'd be more concerned with determining if the act was unrighteous or righteous, defending it only if it was righteous. Then, if it was something unrighteous I'd think you'd want to see if you might also be guilty by association. And then if you were, I'd think you'd want to make reparations.

3DOP

For sake of argument, I have assumed the veracity of the alleged facts. I agree with you about guilt by association and reparations. Good points.

Ahab

For the records, I am profoundly sorrowful for any unrighteous act any person on this planet has ever committed, and I pledge my whole heart to be a better person, personally. I've made lots of mistakes of my own, some of which have effected other people associated with me, and I am sincerely sorry for all the bad things I and other people have done. I know it doesn't sound like a lot to just say I'm sorry, and the words alone don't really do a whole lot. The hard part is to be a better person, both for myself and all others on this planet.

We each affect each other by all the bad things we do, and I thank God for what he offers to all of us through his grace and our repentance. No excuses are ever good enough, and an apology isn't a hard thing to offer.

3DOP

It is wrongful and harmful to others if we accuse the innocent of sins and crimes. This shouldn't be about my faith vs. yours. My other posts from yesterday were in a thread where I chided a fellow Catholic for accusing LDS missionaries of "deliberately misleading". This is about assuming evil motives and attributing them to those who have only remote connections to sins and crimes. I will defend your faith against such mischaracterizations and while I would like for someone non-Catholic to defend my church, I will not be ashamed to defend my own when her guilt is not established.

If you only knew me you would know that I am far from defensive of every act of the pope and bishops. I assure you, I am very capable of accepting that modern day Catholics in high office have been guilty of hideous forms of sin and faithlessness to their callings. HOWEVER, as much as I acknowledge that the modern day hierarchy might be corrupt, unfaithful, and capable of hideous betrayals of the Catholic faith, it is not in the direction of slave trafficking.

If someone is despicable, guilty of serial murder, does that mean it is okay to accuse them of shoplifting? Not unless they shoplifted. Justice demands that we seek the best in people, even those we may despise. We cannot act as though bad people are guilty of everything. The worst people are often the target of unjust accusations.

3DOP

Edited February 22, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

3DOP

It is wrongful and harmful to others if we accuse the innocent of sins and crimes.

But how many of us are really innocent?

This shouldn't be about my faith vs. yours.

I agree. This shoulid be about how we treat others who make mistakes, even very serious ones, while knowing we have made our own mistakes.

My other posts from yesterday were in a thread where I chided a fellow Catholic for accusing LDS missionaries of "deliberately misleading". This is about assuming evil motives and attributing them to those who have only remote connections to sins and crimes. I will defend your faith against such mischaracterizations and while I would like for someone non-Catholic to defend my church, I will not be ashamed to defend my own when her guilt is not established.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, and that goes to anyone in any circumstance, but only to the extent that we are innocent. We're all guilty of something bad, we've all made mistakes (or all but one that is), and it's better to remember that than to be puffed up thinking we don't have any problems of our own to worry about.

If you only knew me you would know that I am far from defensive of every act of the pope and bishops. I assure you, I am very capable of accepting that modern day Catholics in high office have been guilty of hideous forms of sin and faithlessness to their callings. HOWEVER, as much as I acknowledge that the modern day hierarchy might be corrupt, unfaithful, and capable of hideous betrayals of the Catholic faith, it is not in the direction of slave trafficking.

There are many forms of slavery, and I keep hoping that as we rely on faith from God we'll learn to overcome all of our problems.

If someone is despicable, guilty of serial murder, does that mean it is okay to accuse them of shoplifting? Not unless they shoplifted. Justice demands that we seek the best in people, even those we may despise. We cannot act as though bad people are guilty of everything. The worst people are often the target of unjust accusations.

I agree totally with those sentiments, but it's bad enough to be guilty of any sin without counting up how many sins we are guilty of. I think our goal should be to get ourselves out of the mess we get ourselves into, with God to help us along with those who he inspires to help us do that, while making apologies and doing as much good as we can for others along our way.

We hear enough bad news from people called "reporters" as they diegn to give us what they call the world or local news. I'd rather hear the good news while knowing we all have problems of our own to deal with.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I do not know if the government of America has ever apologised to the American Indian for what they did to them. We should have if we have not.

I don't think there is any reason for the American government needing to aplogize. Those people that betrayed the Indians are long gone. If they were still treating them bad now you might have a point. As far as I am aware (feel free to correct me) the Inidans are left largely alone. We don't even tax them.

"Give them the dignity. Give them the respect. Give them the wealth".

Ok Van Jones. Crazy commie.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't think there is any reason for the American government needing to aplogize. Those people that betrayed the Indians are long gone. If they were still treating them bad now you might have a point. As far as I am aware (feel free to correct me) the Inidans are left largely alone. We don't even tax them.

"Give them the dignity. Give them the respect. Give them the wealth".

Ok Van Jones. Crazy commie.

I will say that I do not see present day Americans as guilty. And we all know that Genghis Khan never apologised for what he did. However, if you look at the Indian history of Oregon, the tribes were allowed to keep, by treaty, a large part of the Oregon Territory. Once Gold wa found, the treaties were illegally broken and now Indians have a much smaller area of Oregon. Most people now days are not aware of these things, and we simply use situational ethics to gloss it all over.

I think and am hoping that Mormons are more senstitive to these issues because of the treatment of the bretheren in the early years of our faith.

[Ahab]

I think and am hoping that Mormons are more senstitive to these issues because of the treatment of the bretheren in the early years of our faith.

Most are, I think, but don't concern yourself so much with how members of the Church are. Think instead of how we should be, knowing we should all be striving to be as perfect as our Father (and Mother) in heaven.

[EllenMaksoud]

Most are, I think, but don't concern yourself so much with how members of the Church are. Think instead of how we should be, knowing we should all be striving to be as perfect as our Father (and Mother) in heaven.

Um, well the people of Heavenly Father are supposed to be a peculiar people and just lookin' around me, I'd say we are pretty peculiar.

[urroner]

Is there a difference between "apologizing" and "saying 'I'm sorry?" To me, there can be. In the case of the former, that is an admission of doing something that hurt somebody in some way. The latter is saying "i feel sorrow for what has happened to you" and is not an admission of "guilt."

As far as admiting guilt and saying "I'm sorry," that is usually the right thing to do, but sometimes it isn't.

I have a friend who damaged somebody else in some way financially. It wasn't done intentionally, but it wasn't done with a lot of forethought. He was going to say he was sorry when he realized his mistake, but the other person decided to take him to court, my friend went to a lawyer and explained everything to her. He also told her that he felt he needed to express his sorrow for his actions, but his lawyer simply said, "Are you willing to express you humility and at the same time destroy your family financially?" If he had apologized, it was admitting guilt and the other person would have sued him for everything he was worth and would have won.

Sometimes silence is the better part of discretion.

[3DOP]

Ahab, in reply to my concern that it is harmful to unjustly accuse the innocent:

But how many of us are really innocent?

3DOP

Since the subject is human slave traffic, I should think virtually everybody here at MD&DB is innocent. Is your argument that since we all have sinned, it is commendable to accuse everybody of anything?

Ahab, in reply to my claim that I would also defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as soon as I would mine:

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, and that goes to anyone in any circumstance, but only to the extent that we are innocent. We're all guilty of something bad, we've all made mistakes (or all but one that is), and it's better to remember that than to be puffed up thinking we don't have any problems of our own to worry about.

3DOP

I know I don't have any problems with human slave trafficking. I am innocent and that makes me "puffed up"? I am "puffed up" because I defend somebody else against false charges? I am leaving to go to confession in 22 minutes. I know I have problems of my own to worry about, but why that gives EllenMaksoud the liberty to accuse the Catholic Church of a policy of human slavery involving 30,000 slaves, I don't understand. My personal sins are no disqualification for defending the falsely accused. To be silent when we are reasonably certain that the innocent are being accused is only to add to our sins. This principle applies whether the accused is the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the devil himself. Nobody is guilty of everything, and the wickedest sinner doesn't deserve to be falsely accused.

Ahab, in reply to my admission that the Catholic hierarchy is capable of heinous sins, but does not seem currently inclined to human slave trafficking:

There are many forms of slavery, and I keep hoping that as we rely on faith from God we'll learn to overcome all of our problems.

3DOP

If EllenMaksoud had only listed a form of slavery of which the Catholic Church was possibly guilty, I wouldn't be objecting. The form of slavery we are talking about is specifically, human slavery. But since you mention different forms, it seems like we could note that it is precisely against "one of its forms", prostitution, that the institutions which are under attack, and perhaps correctly so, were first formed. It ios AGAINST a form of slavery that prompted the original mission of the institution.

Ahab, in reply to my concerns that the sins of the unjust are often wrongly multiplied just because some are inclined to think they deserve it:

I agree totally with those sentiments, but it's bad enough to be guilty of any sin without counting up how many sins we are guilty of. I think our goal should be to get ourselves out of the mess we get ourselves into, with God to help us along with those who he inspires to help us do that, while making apologies and doing as much good as we can for others along our way.

3DOP

I am not defending myself here Ahab. Why do you keep bringing up personal sins and now personal goals? How is my defense of the innocent related to whether or not I am being accountable for my own sins, and whether I need to make an apology to somebody? You seem to think that because I defend an institution that is publicly accused, that I have no concern for my own interior life before God. I think you need to establish why the one is incompatible with the other.

Ahab

We hear enough bad news from people called "reporters" as they diegn to give us what they call the world or local news. I'd rather hear the good news while knowing we all have problems of our own to deal with.

3DOP

It seems to me that if you really wanted good news, you would be open and welcome to the idea that some group of persons accused of terrible sin and crimes was innocent. That isn't good news?

Edited February 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I find it enough to accept responsibility for my own actions, though I may express sorrow for someone else's.

A great part of personal responsibility in my opinion is seeing the actions of others in a loving, christlike and realistic manner and that would include not making global accusations when seeing despicable behaviour. Enough harm has already been done in the action of that behaviour itself, adding to the list of victims by accusing those not responsible for those actions is not being responsible. Horrible tragedies bring with them significant emotional repulsion, but we need to ensure in our desire to have someone brought to justice, we don't spread our accusations too widely.

If we choose to judge, we must be willing to be cautious and loving in our judgment to avoid judging unrighteously.

Edited February 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I'm not singling the Catholic church out, but someone is at fault.

But, dear Ellen, you did single out the Catholic Church in one case in your first post when you stated "the 30,000 women who were enslaved by the Catholic Church there". Someone is at fault, but if people are to be brought to justice, found responsible and held to the responsibility then it is essential, is it not, and very, very important that we focus on the exact people who are at fault and not spread the accusation of responsibility for such a tragedy too wide? Not only does this create more victims---those who are falsely accused---but it creates a situation where those who are responsible get lost in the greater group of falsely accused and therefore they are less likely to be brought to justice.

I think we all tend to speak in global terms too carelessly, lds talk about "critics" when we mean "some critics", some LDS critics apply qualities to all of LDS when it is obvious that it can only apply to some, there are those who attack women as a class based on the actions of a few and the same for men. Nothing gets accomplished with these kinds of accusations except to create more victims which is something I know you do not want to happen. We all need to remember our words can have an affect we do not intend and therefore be very careful how we are using them in sensitive situations.

I think global apologies can have the same problem. By someone stepping in and offering an apology for their group's past actions, the responsibility is spread to the entire group, past, present and maybe even future, instead of being focused on the limited number of individuals that actually committed the crime. The entire group is tarred by a brush that should have been used on only a certain number of people and by apply the responsibility to a larger group, this diminishes the actual responsibility held by those who perpetrated the deed itself.

I think public recognition of past wrongs is wise and expression of sorrow for the victims is loving, but apologizing for the actions of others as if one has an obligation to do so simply because one sees oneself as part of a larger group those responsible belonged to.....no, I think that simply permits a disminishment of actual responsibility and in some cases a disminishment of the feelings of the victims as it seems unrighteous not to excuse the group that has apologized...and thus the ones responsible as well even if one knows that those who actually did the act never sought for such forgiveness.

Edited February 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

But, dear Ellen, you did single out the Catholic Church in one case in your first post when you stated "the 30,000 women who were enslaved by the Catholic Church there". Someone is at fault, but if people are to be brought to justice, found responsible and held to the responsibility then it is essential, is it not, and very, very important that we focus on the exact people who are at fault and not spread the accusation of responsibility for such a tragedy too wide? Not only does this create more victims---those who are falsely accused---but it creates a situation where those who are responsible get lost in the greater group of falsely accused and therefore they are less likely to be brought to justice.

I think we all tend to speak in global terms too carelessly, lds talk about "critics" when we mean "some critics", some LDS critics apply qualities to all of LDS when it is obvious that it can only apply to some, there are those who attack women as a class based on the actions of a few and the same for men. Nothing gets accomplished with these kinds of accusations except to create more victims which is something I know you do not want to happen. We all need to remember our words can have an affect we do not intend and therefore be very careful how we are using them in sensitive situations.

Alright, I yield to your better discernment. I am sorry, and my research was careless. For some reason, I have not been getting all the traffic on this post, but I do know one person I should apologise to.

[EllenMaksoud]

With two minutes of effort regarding a subject of which I have never heard, I learn that in the 18th Century, both Protestant and Catholic programs were developed in both Europe and America that sought to help women who found themselves enslaved by prostitution by giving them shelter and a way to support their community shelters. The Catholic institutions were called Magdalen Laundries while the Protestants used the term Bethany Laundries. There has been a great deal written alleging that over the course of two centuries, the Irish institution, which was primarily Catholic, finally became corrupt and lost its vision for reform of wayward girls and became a cheap source of income for a cruddy group of Catholic nuns, who have little resemblance to the good sisters who began the work with good and loving hearts.

I guess I just don't quite get how the Catholic Church gets to be convicted of guilt for this even if all of the allegations are true. In what way is the use of slave labor compatible with the teachings of the Catholic faith? Has there been any incriminating evidence showing that Rome has been encouraging the slavery? Do the sisters, like some Nazi death camp guard, blame higher authorities saying they were carrying out commands that came from above? Did the Irish bishops knowingly support what they knew had become slavery, or did they still think it was a reform oriented institution? These seem like necessary questions to answer before we accuse the Catholic Church of complicity in this.

It seems to me that in a thread calling for responsibility, we ought to be careful to avoid allowing the evils of a handful to besmirch the reputations of billions of anti-slavery Catholics, including every pope since the 18th Century who I am confident never secretly or publicly promoted slave labor. I am sorry if corrupted and hateful Catholic sisters denied their faith and became associated with slavery. But I am skeptical about whether the charge can be reasonably aimed at the Catholic Church.

I am sorry that I wrote too harshly regarding the Catholic Church. I should have taken closer note that it was the Irish Government that apologised and not the Catholic Church, so that illustrates that the government felt themselves more culpable to the offenses.

[Calm]

Alright, I yield to your better discernment. I am sorry, and my research was careless. For some reason, I have not been getting all the traffic on this post, but I do know one person I should apologise to.

You are kind to to think me 'better discerned'...it is easier to be so from a greater distance. I have not been victimized in the ways these women were or in the ways you and your friend were so it is easier for me to step back and look at the picture 'clinically' as must be done in judgment.....but there are times when stepping back isn't what is needed, but stepping forward. Everyone needs to learn when that is supposed to be for themselves and oftentimes it is the personal knowledge that comes from horrible personal experience that can help other victims to reach out and accept healing where someone like me can only offer sympathy and attempts to comfort. Edited February 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

I am sorry that I wrote too harshly regarding the Catholic Church. I should have taken closer note that it was the Irish Government that apologised and not the Catholic Church, so that illustrates that the government felt themselves more culpable to the offenses.

Thank you very much Ellen. I am completely satisfied. No hard feelings.

Warm Regards,

3DOP

[3DOP]

Thanks also to our dear facilitator...without whom this elimination of tensions might never have happened. Wise and peacemaking words from calmoriah, of the superior discernment!

I am sorry also Ellen. I am sorry for your unhappy youth and that of your Welsh friend. In my zeal to defend the innocent, I was surely cold to the pain you have felt. Although my endeavor has reached an apparently happy conclusion, I think it might have been even more satisfying on my side, if I hadn't been a little over sensitive myself about perceived attacks against my faith. I was determined that no one should use this incident to bash my church unduly. (I remain open to the possibility, even the probability, that certain higher authorities in the Irish Church failed to provide proper oversight, as Stargazer suggested.) I could probably have pointed out that the words used were too "global" to borrow cal's expression, while still retaining more sympathy for victims of terrible circumstances resembling those that are described.

God Bless,

3DOP

Edited February 23, 2013 by 3DOP