At World Meeting of Families, Catholic leaders address sex abuse scandal, LGBT inclusion

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

A range of challenges to family life in the 21st century — from poor communication and alienation to sexual misconduct and the treatment of LGBT persons — dominated conversation at the Catholic Church’s World Meeting of Families this week.
Participants in the four-day pastoral congress heard talks by church leaders in the United States and beyond as they sought encouragement in the wake of ongoing abuse scandals and shifting societal attitudes about sexuality.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/24/at-world-meeting-of-families-catholic-leaders-address-sex-abuse-scandal-lgbt-inclusion/

[MineralMan]

1. I did go and read that article.

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a pity you didn't include the entire four paragraphs allowed. Here are two that actually have some relevance:

Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, addressed the clergy sexual abuse crisis on the heels of a Pennsylvania grand jury report that found child sex abuse by more than 300 priests over a 70-year period. He said that church leaders run the risk of forfeiting moral authority if they don’t consistently stand up for every person’s dignity.

“If each of us do not witness to the truth of our teaching on the human person as a relational being in our own lives, the fundamental dignity of each of us as children of God, then we cannot pretend to teach,” said Cupich.

Your excerpt only revealed that there was a meeting and that there was talk. Why not share some of what was said? I don't get it. The fact that there was a meeting reveals nothing. The two paragraphs that follow your excerpt reveal much more.

Is that deliberate on your part - not revealing the meat of the article, just the introduction?

[Lordquinton]

3. Almost like he's pushing an agenda

Forcing a narrative, reframing the argument...

[MineralMan]

5. And yet, clicking the link reveals much

That wasn't in those intro paragraphs. It's almost like someone thinks nobody will actually click. Well, I do click, and immediately saw though the vanilla paragraphs why not post relevant content. I don't get it, I hope.

[Lordquinton]

7. It's always amazing reading an article

and finding that it doesn't support the poster's narrative. Excerpts are there to support what you want to say, what isn't chosen is as telling as what is. Not stating the point to the posting is as well, you can force people to take their views without putting your own, putting commentators on the defencive.

Of course you also have to actually participate in discussion which the many contentless posts from the OP here show isn't the goal.

[guillaumeb]

8. See #6. My actual answer.

[guillaumeb]

6. I assume that responders will have read the entire article. eom

[MineralMan]

10. But many don't. You know that.

You post the parts you want to emphasize, knowing that a majority doesn't click through. We can see what you're doing. Really, we can.

[guillaumeb]

12. So you are claiming that many of the responders write with no idea

of what the point is? An interesting admission. Perhaps DU should have an icon to identify those who respond without reading.

[Voltaire2]

2. Rotten to the core.

Catholics of conscience need to stop supporting the RCC.

[Lordquinton]

4. Did they talk about the massive cover up?

Opening their records to the authorities and submitting the perpetrators to justice?

[guillaumeb]

9. The article is not that long.

That is a hint.

[Lordquinton]

11. So they didn't

Got it.