Thursday July 29th, 2010
- Last update:2 hours 17 min ago
Football
Cricket
Weak criticisms by Baldeosingh
Published: 9 May 2009
What is interesting about this issue is how it highlights the irrelevance of the canons of academic writing on science in assessing Fr Charles’ religious writing. Columnist Kevin Baldeosingh is an intelligent man and a passionate believer in the “scientific” outlook. But he is unable to see that the evidentiary procedures of modern science are inapplicable to the validity of religious belief or the testamentary criteria involved in religious writing. Fr Charles writes as a priest, a passionate believer in the Roman Catholic traditions, and no doubt immersed in the varied theological and philosophical writings and commentaries of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, who had a major influence on the development of Christianity.
For Fr Charles drawing on the writings of those whose views support his faith in order to promulgate what he, as a Christian, sees as true and worthy of belief cannot be seen as “plagiarism,” as Baldeosingh insinuates. It cannot be plagiarism, for example, for Fr Charles to cite Thomas Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God or St Augustine’s argument that the Kingdom of God will be established in the next world, without acknowledging the sources. These views have become part of the Catholic world view. St Augustine’s argument, in fact, reflects the influence of Plato, that great Greek philosopher, who believed that ultimate reality is a realm that is objective, eternal and intelligible.
It transcends our human world of the five senses. One does see these individuals cited in ordinary religious writing, and there is no reason why they should be. For it is the collective religious tradition and its central message that are used to enlighten and persuade. It is the efficacy of the religious argument that is important, not so much its origin. And this does not depend solely on reason, as Baldeosingh would wish, but more importantly, on faith. Reason for the believer can take one only so far, although it is better to have harmony and faith, as St Augustine believed.
For the scientist the use of reason and evidence are of key importance. So if Fr Charles has adopted the arguments of others without citing his sources, he need not feel culpable of anything. His newspaper column would exceed his allotted space if he cited sources. Moreover, such sources do not add strength to the religious message. It is legitimate, from the perspective of religion, for a priest/minister to use whatever truths, reasons, and arguments to propagate his faith and enlighten the masses. You see this also in Hinduism and Islam.
Social analysis
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the eminent English philosopher, saw a passionate commitment and a distinctive lifestyle as the central features of the religious view of the world. This style is different from that of scientists. Essentially priests/ministers moralise and preach; scientists hypothesise and experiment. Hypotheses and experiments require adherence to criteria of reliability and validity, objective evidence and peer evaluation. Peer evaluation requires the examination of sources and data and the replication of experiments. There is no peer evaluation of religious sermons or religious arguments in print or otherwise. You either believe or not. It is the thrust of the message that is important.
This is why religions like Hinduism and Islam continue to exist despite rational criticism of the cruelties they sanction. Their followers choose to believe. If Fr Charles is guilty of plagiarism so also are the the editors and columnists in our newspapers. Most of their views, when they have any, reflect information gathered from sources they do not cite. Indeed, they commit a larger media “crime” in that they do not engage in any investigative reporting or (with one or two exceptions) deep social and political analysis—central tasks and features of a free press in advanced Western countries. Without crime or letters from citizens, their papers would have little interesting content, unless the vulgar goings-on of UNC politicians are deemed such.
Baldeosingh’s attack on Fr Charles clearly reflects his hostility to religion. But he leaves himself open to criticism on a variety of fronts: his arrogance in claiming he is always logical or one of the few Trinis who are such; his uncritical and dogmatic presentation of ideas he may have read in this or that book; and his immature view of science as unified and necessarily hostile to religious belief. He would benefit enormously from reading The Language of God by Dr Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project in the US, and one of the world’s leading scientists. Baldeosingh has yet to learn that the reality of the scientist and that of a believer are two very different things, as are the language of science and that of religion.
"Polish priests warned on
"Polish priests warned on plagiarism
Published: April 26, 2008 at 11:57 PM
KRAKOW, Poland, April 26 (UPI) -- The Roman Catholic Church in Poland has warned priests who use the Internet or other sources for their sermons they could be fined or imprisoned for plagiarism.
The church has published "To Plagiarize or Not to Plagiarize," a guide that provides sermon-writing tips while warning priests about the consequences of stealing intellectual property.
Father Wieslaw Przyczyna of the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow is one of the authors of the guide. He said the worst offenders are generally young, inexperienced priests who discover on Saturday night that they have no idea what to say at mass the next day.
"Unfortunately the practice has become more usual than not," he said. "But if a priest takes another priest's words and presents them as his own without saying where he got them from, this is unethical and against the rules of authorship."
The church plans to begin spot checks to look for plagiarism and to encourage parishioners to compare what they hear in the pulpit with sermons available online.
© 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
One would have expected no
One would have expected no less from the Church.
Good post.
MFRahman
CASTING PEARLS BEFORE SWINE,
CASTING PEARLS BEFORE SWINE, KENNETH, truly you are.....they could not wait to join Mr. Baldeosingh's bandwagon. Fr. Henry Charles erred and was not as repentant for the likes of most of his critics. I expect to be accused of blind loyalty which I hold only for OUR GOD. Yet this public lynching of Fr. Charles only goes to show how far our society has descended. That we find it necessary to strip your column appears to be more of a moral high ground to express literary intelligence. I wonder though how Jesus/Ghandi would have handled this whole fiasco? How would they deal with the President, the PM, Leader of the Opposition, the members of the IC who have all now taken an exit and we the public for our thrust towards character assassination? Let's see which one of us would be truly able to cast that first stone even if we choose to do so after lengthy legal dissertations. If only we'd use those energies to get some positive actions in our own missions!
Signed Arima/Mayarobabe
aka Magdelena (Astley....don't disappoint me now)
'Do not give dogs what is
'Do not give dogs what is holy;"and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, or they may trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces". Mathew 7:6 (The Jerusalem Bible).
Is that the quote you abridged?
I find your twist of God's words extremely telling of the sort of person you are.
Truely I have no desire to comment on anything you say.
But, I wish you well.
Regretfully, my pearls have
Regretfully, my pearls have been found by an Ast and I am torn to pieces.
The dogs asked for the scraps from the master's table and became lords over the Jews through whom salvation is found.
Scriptural irony.
MFRahman
My comment was not directed
My comment was not directed at your sobering thoughts Sir. I think the reply thread linked by comment to the wrong post.
I wonder... Would the canon
I wonder...
Would the canon law prohibition against priests taking public office have been reviewed if the father didn't get a call from a reporter earlier that day.
People are saying that Charles acted with integrity post-plagiarism. But is casting the whistle blower as petty and looking for loopholes to avoid resigning for the right reasons honourable? It all smacks of false pride.
"From whom much is given,
"From whom much is given, much is expected." Bible.
In addition to being a man of the cloth, Fr. Charles is an attorney, a columnist, and a man of letters.
He is a role model.
Fr. Charles preaches honesty and integrity.
"Why do you say that which you do not do? Odious it is in the sight of God that you should say that which you do not do." Quran.
MFRahman
"For all have sinned and
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Bible.
How many of us receive "much" (much is relative) and still do not return "much"?
Each one of us is a role model, relatively speaking. We,secular folk break many rules, even vows which are overlooked but for a man of the cloth, human as he is, there is public lynching.
In a very simplistic and meaningful way, Integrity is like sweeping the corners where no one else will see.
Fr. Henry admitted his sin and yes it was after it was brought to light by Mr. Baldeosingh. How many of us break the "law", are not caught and keep silent?
Would a crying repentant response from Fr. Henry Charles have appeased the mob? Do I hear an echo : CRUCIFY HIM, CRUCIFY HIM!!!!!!
Indeed Jesus was so right : FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE...
Ahh how much more now can I appreciate that good thief, Dismas.
"Priests, prudent
"Priests, prudent cooperators with the Episcopal order,(72*) its aid and instrument, called to serve the people of God, constitute one priesthood (73*) with their bishop although bound by a diversity of duties. Associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity, they make him present in a certain sense in the individual local congregations, and take upon themselves, as far as they are able, his duties and the burden of his care, and discharge them with a daily interest. And as they sanctify and govern under the bishop's authority, that part of the Lord's flock entrusted to them they make the universal Church visible in their own locality and bring an efficacious assistance to the building up of the whole body of Christ.(184) intent always upon the welfare of God's children, they must strive to lend their effort to the pastoral work of the whole diocese, and even of the entire Church. On account of this sharing in their priesthood and mission, let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him. And let the bishop regard his priests as his co-workers and as sons and friends, just as Christ called His disciples now not servants but friends.(185) All priests, both diocesan and religious, by reason of Orders and ministry, fit into this body of bishops and priests, and serve the good of the whole Church according to their vocation and the grace given to them.
In virtue of their common sacred ordination and mission, all priests are bound together in intimate brotherhood, which naturally and freely manifests itself in mutual aid, spiritual as well as material, pastoral as well as personal, in their meetings and in communion of life, of labor and charity.
Let them, as fathers in Christ, take care of the faithful whom they have begotten by baptism and their teaching.(186) Becoming from the heart a pattern to the flock,(187) let them so lead and serve their local community that it may worthily be called by that name, by which the one and entire people of God is signed, namely, the Church of God.(188) Let them remember that by their daily life and interests they are showing the face of a truly sacerdotal and pastoral ministry to the faithful and the infidel, to Catholics and non-Catholics, and that to all they bear witness to the truth and life, and as good shepherds go after those also,(189) who though baptized in the Catholic Church have fallen away from the use of the sacraments, or even from the faith.
Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God."
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
The issue here is that Fr.
The issue here is that Fr. Charles received absolution from the President for his plagiarism and has never admitted it to be wrong, rather justifying it by dadline pressures.
He has found an exit strategy, but his error will not be erased least of all by removing photographers and reporters from his presence.
He is the man of the moment, however unpleasant that may be.
Indeed, we have all sinned, but we do not all accept contradictory high office.
Fr. Charles' fall damages the society and particularly the cynical youths. There is no joy in this regression.
MFRahman
We are all elected to high
We are all elected to high office, be it a kitchen or Whitehall. Fr. Henry admitted to his wrongdoing but may not have been as repentant as some of us would like him to be. Yet we cannot challenge his repentance to Our God, which is where it matters most.
We must be mindful too that even our cynical, convoluted dissertations can have negative impact on our impressionable youth....I repeat let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.
And yes he is the man of the moment of last week......in T&T Fr. Henry will be easily dethroned....are we back to Mr. Hart?
All ah we thief
All ah we thief
Therefore why do we need laws? Why do we waste time confessing if we go only sin again? I thought we confessed so that we would make the effort not to sin again. Our reasoning becomes convoluted and our reason for doing something becomes questionable. This is the dilemma of our youth, do as I say but not as I do. The mass confusion of our youth has been cultivated over the years. We are now reaping the whirlwind. What are the messages
1) It is good to cheat if you can get away with it because you are in a high place. Then we parade some youth before the court for buying exam papers.
2) We misinterpret Canon Law our area of expertise. But we criticise all and sundry even in areas where they are not even experts.
3)Who’s guarding the guards?
Disappointed
Disappointed
When someone we love has disappointed us we go through the stages as if it was a death. There is obviously, denial and anger here but there will be grief and healing in the end. There is the need for compassion as the self delusion is most apparent. I am sure that with God's grace healing will take place, but we must put our finger in the wound first.
Thomas needed to put his
Thomas needed to put his finger in the wound to BELIEVE...was there any doubt here or is putting our finger in this wound a chance at tasting the blood....a different form of character assassination which we've come to enjoy....destruction seems to be the more preferred approach rather than building up!
Process
Process
Most times destruction is part of the building up process. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.
Chain Reaction
Chain Reaction
Citizens have been concerned about all the players. As the circumstances unfolded they made their judgements. Fr Charles was not singled out for special mention. In sequence Kamala, Panday, Mr Mc Farlane, The President, the PM and the Integrity Commission have all been subjected to criticism. As information about Fr Charles became known the spotlight fell on him. My concern is that it would appear that his situation should not be death with or if so only in a favourable light. Do we truly believe that no one is above the law, be it Man's or God’s.
MFRahman. 683 4698.
MFRahman. 683 4698. 10/5/09.
The Editor,
Sir.
The blind faithfulness of Kenneth Assee.
My own feeling of reprehension when reading local humanist Kevin Baldeosingh’s compulsive diatribes against religion is avoided by simply not reading him.
Experience has taught me that his employers rarely permit criticism of his work and I see no reason to become embroiled in futility.
I have not read his exposé of Fr. Charles, but have become aware of his work in this very important matter, and while I wanted very much to congratulate him, I realized that the keenness of his eye was merely the result of his predatory reading of religious works.
Kenneth Assee’s criticism of Baldeosingh’s work in trying to defend Fr. Charles is an understandable “cri de coeur” of a faithful sheep, but does damage to both science and religion.
That Fr. Charles himself viewed his plagiarism as significant when exposed, gives the lie to his defense. And our maximum cognoscenti’s instructive diktat that it was common in academia further shreds Mr. Assee’s argument.
It is not Fr. Charles’ religious writings that are being assessed, but his glaring lack of literary propriety in not paraphrasing priestly principles in his own language, but choosing to appropriate the unacknowledged words of another. Simple quotation marks would have sufficed.
One may not even write scripture as one’s own words without seeming to play God.
Intellectual property does not include ideas, but explicit language is clearly sacrosanct.
It seems beyond Assee’s ken that “...the canons of academic writing” very much apply to priestly articles. Ken does not see the obvious. How can Doctrine sanctify literary violations?
Kenneth writes: [[“But he is unable to see that the evidentiary procedures of modern science are inapplicable to the validity of religious belief....”]].
Here he seeks to perpetuate a view that has spawned atheism and which continues to damage religion. Faith based on unquestioning blind acceptance will always be repugnant to reason. Invalid religious beliefs must be rejected.
Neither St Thomas Aquinas nor St Augustine felt that the book was closed. They were thinkers and seekers, wrestling with theology in a primitive scientific society. They may be forgiven. But any authority that insists on absurdity as a ground for faith must be challenged.
Yet, Fr. Charles is free to write on blind faith, but he remains subject to literary standards and no plea of pressing deadline can exculpate.
It is significant that the newly proffered Canonical basis for Fr. Charles’ resignation removes the spotlight from his malfeasance.
One must wonder what Chairman Fr. Charles’ position would have been had the AG been accused before his Commission of plagiarism? Or if the Minister of Finance were charged with lack of integrity having authored a book on that subject? Would his own sin have mitigated theirs?
Assee writes: [[“It transcends our human world of the five senses. One does see these individuals cited in ordinary religious writing, and there is no reason why they should be.”]]
Clearly ethics and morality transcend our five senses. Perhaps philosophers do not quote the saints since they arrive at their principles independently. But religious writings have a greater obligation to acknowledge sources. Even Jesus acknowledged Moses’ role and quoted his law. And although Christians believe on faith that Jesus is God, he yet gives credit to Moses.
Assee argues: [[“ For it is the collective religious tradition and its central message that are used to enlighten and persuade. It is the efficacy of the religious argument that is important, not so much its origin.”]]
But he disregards the reverence that is attached to wisdom which plagiarism bestows on the culprit.
Again, all Fr. Charles needed to do was to use quotation marks to declaim originality. That is the minimum ethical requirement at no cost to space.
Now Assee enters dangerous ground: [[“You see this also in Hinduism and Islam.”]]
Islam above all rejects blind faith for intelligent beings.
[[“There is no peer evaluation of religious sermons or religious arguments in print or otherwise. You either believe or not. It is the thrust of the message that is important.”]]
How can one accept the thrust of an absurd message?
Muslim Theologians differ and independent thinkers continuously challenge, sometimes daringly against fanatics.
Again, [[“This is why religions like Hinduism and Islam continue to exist despite rational criticism of the cruelties they sanction.”]]
Here Assee condemns religion for the errors of followers.
Assee’s braying exceeds when he condemns editors: [[“If Fr Charles is guilty of plagiarism so also are the the editors and columnists in our newspapers. Most of their views, when they have any, reflect information gathered from sources they do not cite.”]]
Doubly wrong. Paraphrasing of ideas is not plagiarism, and the press always acknowledges sources except where anonymity is required.
While I may share some of his views on Baldeosingh, I must thank God for the latter’s present contribution to exposing clerical double standards whatever his motives.
MFRahman.
MF Rahman questions "How can
MF Rahman questions "How can one accept the thrust of an absurd message?" What makes the message absurd? Logic? Scienfic evidence?
Reimann geometry differs from Euclidian geometry, it is counter-intuitive. From a commonsense point of view, it is absurd. Would MF Rahman then suggest that we should not accept Riemann geometry since it is absurd from the point of view of intuition and logic? I have no disagreement, however, with the points that Rahman makes on plagiarism.
MFRahman Thank you for your
MFRahman
Thank you for your concurrence with the larger issue.
In the interest of religious tolerance, I would not dilate on the issue of doctrinal absurdities.
Let me only say that I find no incongruity between Newtonian and Quantum physics.
MFRahman.
The priest has accepted
The priest has accepted Baldoesingh's comments and published his regrets. Assee should leave this alone.
The goodly father did not
The goodly father did not "cite" anything. He lifted paragraphs wholesale and led readers to believe that the ideas, construction and very language were all his own. This is a most asinine view by Assee. Really, the horse you're whipping is long dead.
Trying to discredit Mr.
Trying to discredit Mr. Kevin Baldeosingh, now Assee? Awww...it's not going to work, ok, sweetheart?? Ok?
I will refer ANY of Mr. Baldeosingh's to ANYONE interested in them; I've done so to my T&T and non-T&T friends!!
"Baldeosingh’s attack on Fr Charles clearly reflects his hostility to religion." Wait a damn minute now: wasn't it for fr charles' BLATANT PLAGARISM??
Kudos to Mr. Kevin Baldeosingh!!!
And, since you brought up religion, ALL RELIGIONS ARE CORRUPT!! So from the moment you or anyone else asks me about, 'wat yo religion', 'wat yo iz,' you are asking me if I am corrupt.
Bacon172000.
Emotional
Emotional
It is always an emotional issue when you question a priest. If this was a mere mortal we ready to hang him. You would find members of the flock wanting political leaders to resign for their transgressions. When it comes to transgressions of their beloved priests they are very quick to forgive. When this appointment was made I thought the man was a saint, or the saint was a man. Moral and spiritual values were restored for a second time. The politicians were accused of making numerous mistakes. I am not hearing the same outrage over the mistakes of the interpretation of Canon Law. Like a mistake by some is incompetence while by others it is understandable. How many priests in Trinidad have been jailed for breaking the law? Maybe they never break laws or ever do anything wrong. A priest was supposedly under investigation for sodomy but was allowed to jump on a plane and go back to England. It was said that he subsequently died of AIDS. Remember the calypso "If the Priest could Play".
Baldeosingh's articles show
Baldeosingh's articles show that he not only does not understand the difference between science and faith, but also that he is intellectually dishonest. His dogmatic atheism, which he masquerades as infallible logic, reeks of fundamentalist scientism. All in all he shows himself as a half-educated, egotist.
Vishal what does what you
Vishal what does what you wrote show about you? That you are as pseudo as Assee? The same can be applied to the other pseudos in UWI, are you one of them like your lecturer friend.
I guess that's the way the
I guess that's the way the half-educated resonds to what they can't understand - call them psuedo. Brilliant.
Vishal the other
Vishal the other three-quaters of my education is not from UWI, I can assure you. But you, like Ashee and your lecturer friend of not too long ago, consistently try to impress with "educated" verbage and you all are really the true borrowers. Pseudo I said not psuedo! Brilliant!
But I look forward to the day when you will give me something really interesting to read from your brighter side. Stop the "piggy-backing".
Don't expect nothing from my one quater UWI side!
Fairplay's comments are
Fairplay's comments are anything but fairplay. The only group you can attack now in Trinidad are priests. They are like sitting ducks. Politicians will lie and come up with all sorts of excuses. They will never admit to doing wrong. Fr. Charles has become a scapegoat for all the wrongs we have in Trinidad. Look at all the murders, the corruption and stealing of millions, and all we do is beat like a bobolee a man who has, unwittingly maybe, not quoted his sources for a column in the newspaper. Great, maybe next we can have a public hanging of someone who has made some grammatical mistakes in his column.
History
History
It has been long established and accepted that politicians are fallible. There are many before the courts but there are also some good politicians. We are now coming to terms with the humanness of priests. They have been put on a pedestal and are seen as infallible. Just as there are many good priests we swept under the carpet their wrongdoings. Fairplay would suggest that we acknowledge that all that glitters is not gold. If we like someone we have a tendency to see their faults in a more favourable light. The blind followers of politicians are sycophants; we must accept that there are also blind followers of priests. As a child I thought that my parents could do no wrong. I know better as an adult and can say that I can now truly love them before I was infatuated with them. I think the process was known as growing up. Fr Charles is a good man who did something wrong. Not a perfect saint that can do no wrong. We have no such delusions about Pundits, Pastors or Imams we have seen them have to accept the consequences of their transgressions.
Well, you certainly take the
Well, you certainly take the cake! Did St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas, Plato et al copyright their work? Are not the articles used by the priest copyrighted as in ©The New Times and ©The American Press? Your article is a good example of pseudo-intellictualism, if ever there is such a term!
Kevin Baldeosing is correct
Kevin Baldeosing is correct and Father Charles did commit plagiarism as he tok wholesale ideas and text written by another without their permission. It is therefore disingenuous of Mr Assee to say that other editors also do the same it is akin to saying(all ah we tief). He is positing that since other people also plagiarise and it is common practise Fr Charles should be treated less harshly. I disagree because that is one of the reasons why we find it so hard to find people of integrity since we believe that everyone is doing wrong and hence we fail to take action because we think it is commonplace.