Posted on 10/12/2004 4:46:46 AM PDT by tcg
This is the logical error called the "Fallacy of Composition". "The Catholic hierarchy" is not a moral agent, and cannot, properly speaking, be "justly blamed" for anything. Individuals do evil things, and it's illogical to blame an individual for some wrongdoing committed by another individual with whom he shares some common characteristics.
Blame the bishops who actually did evil things all day long, but don't tar bishops in general, priests in general, or Catholics in general for the sins of a few.
This is the same illogic that would blame "all Arabs" or "all Muslims" for 9/11, and "all white Americans" for slavery, etc. If you want to talk fundamental principles of conservatism, how about this one: individual blame for individual wrongdoing, not this kind of bogus guilt by association or "class guilt" junk. That crud is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook.
This is the logical error called the "Fallacy of Composition". "The Catholic hierarchy" is not a moral agent, and cannot, properly speaking, be "justly blamed" for anything. Individuals do evil things, and it's illogical to blame an individual for some wrongdoing committed by another individual with whom he shares some common characteristics.
Blame the bishops who actually did evil things all day long, but don't tar bishops in general, priests in general, or Catholics in general for the sins of a few.
This is the same illogic that would blame "all Arabs" or "all Muslims" for 9/11, and "all white Americans" for slavery, etc. If you want to talk fundamental principles of conservatism, how about this one: individual blame for individual wrongdoing, not this kind of bogus guilt by association or "class guilt" junk. That crud is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook.
I don't know about early elementary school, but I thought he attended a posh boarding school in Switzerland for middle school, then a private academy for high school. I don't think either of those two were Catholic. One never knows, but if his parents weren't strongly Catholic, it's doubtful he would have ever considered being an altar boy.
The hierarchy knowingly sheltered many. Why they did it is unclear.
Deftly put. It's an insinuation that you can deny making if you wish.
Through my 16 years of Catholic school, I never once heard it said that going to secular schools was "against the rules". In grade school, in fact, those of us in the Catholic school were dismissed early one day each week so that the kids from the public school across the street could come over for their own religion class. Are you saying that it was "against the rules" to attend a public school or to attend a secular private school? I don't remember ever hearing either - and the nuns we had never had any shortage of things they described as forbidden. I still don't eat a lot of fruit just in case I accidentally get hold of some of that "forbidden fruit".
The Catholic Church used to condemned the sending of Catholic children to secular schools (public or private) as a mortal sin. And this was from an era when Catholic schools were mostly free, so there was no financial excuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.