quote:It's Javert. He means it when he says you're guilty.
I know he didn't mean it literally, that he was actually pointing out that 'terrorist arrest' does not necessarily equal 'terrorist action'. I was just wondering whether he would accord the same skepticism to a child molestation arrest of a Catholic priest as he would a terrorist arrest of a Muslim.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, it was a serious question. Terrorist arrests falling under things that interest you, I think, Javert, you obviously would not think arrest=guilt there. And I'm sure you wouldn't after thinking about it, think otherwise about child molestation arrests either.
My question was about the initial, instinctive reaction was all. It's the kind of thing I wonder about myself, that I watch out for and sometimes find to my dismay, so I was just curious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
More seriously, I think that the percentage of priest who abuse children is probably higher than that of the population at large if only because men are more likely to abuse and Catholic priests are men. It is also important to remember that the vast majority of priests who do molest children are not molesting pre-pubescent children. Most are hebephiles or ephebophiles. This may be more prevalent in the priesthood than in the general population because of young men who turn to a celibate life in an (often futile) attempts to repress sexual urges and whose psycho-sexual maturity is arrested.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You're more likely to be molested by a little league coach than a priest.
Could I have your source for that, please?
In one of the the news reports about the current sex abuse lawsuit in Oregon it said that the state currently has more complaints against boy scout leaders than priests.
But the access issue is the same there. Maybe even greater since boy scouts sponsor camping trips more often than most church youth groups do.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. Hmmm...I was hoping for some actual statistics. They are really hard to find due to secrecy and underreporting and so forth. This may lead to some other info.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took Rakeesh's statement to mean that, to you, the Catholic church had already lost all credibility long before you read that link.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see where you'd think I was insulting you, steven, but Sean and Samprimary are right: I was pointing out that it doesn't seem like, for you, the Catholic Church had any credibility left.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can see where you'd think I was insulting you, steven, but Sean and Samprimary are right: I was pointing out that it doesn't seem like, for you, the Catholic Church had any credibility left.
Never mind whether they had credibility with ME...the fact that senior members of the Vatican actually consider themselves persecuted is compelling evidence that they have lost touch, totally. Losing touch isn't exactly, I think, what Jesus meant when he talked about publicans and sinners, etc.. The Vatican, though, seems as though it hasn't just lost touch with the publicans and sinners...they've lost touch with everybody.
I think the senior Vatican has more in common with inmates in an asylum than they do with everyday people. Maybe the church hierarchy needs a turnover. Do it like we do with our elected officials in the US...throw them out!
I bet they'd do some regaining of touch if they had to work normal jobs around average people. Maybe.
Or are they more special?
Maybe they're too special to have to deal with the likes of normal people.
Oh wait...no, I think Jesus wouldn't have approved...hmmm...remarkable, the irony.
To Sam---was that meant to be a substantive post?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Yes, but this is hardly news from a Canadian POV. Quebec Catholics have been even more visible in their objection to papal authority in the examples of Prime Ministers Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin.
What I was curious was about the reasoning that you couldn't simply become an Anglican and carry over those elements of ritual that you find compelling from Catholicism (as the inverse of the Pope allowing Anglicans to carry over Anglican rituals).
The line of argument outlined in the forward is that if you assume that the Catholic church is the "true" church, then it is a sin to convert (since it is a form of saying that the church is wrong), a sin to leave the community of Catholics, and that merger with other churches like the Anglican church must be done on a church-level and not on an individual level.
The reason I don't want to pursue, is that this line of reasoning has almost no overlap with arguments based on how effective or how moral the system of the church is. Effectively, the priests, bishops, and pope could be the meanest and most criminal people on Earth, but the Catholic church would still be the "true" church and those arguments would still apply.
(Which is kinda depressing really)
It looks like this thread's otherwise degenerated into nonsense, but Mucus' post is worth reading twice. Boots, I don't really have the desire or time to convert you -- if you're satisfied with your beliefs, however mismatched they are with Catholicism, I wish you the best. However, please remember that the pedophile ring within the Church relies on people like you to continue supporting them without consequence.
I've just had a remarkable similar discussion with a Muslim friend of mine, who's convinced she's Muslim despite her full embrace of Western lifestyle. Religion seems to be far more of a tribal identity than any particular set of beliefs.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you are simply going to have to take my word for it that for the past 35 years I have studies several religions - even took some seminary classes. Attended services regularly (weekly or better) for Catholic, Methodist, UCC, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran congregations. Worked as a Director of Children's Ministries for a large church. Attended mass regularly for 10 years. Formally studied for a year to convert to Catholicism, talked to many priests, directors of faith formation, engaged lay Catholics, nuns, and even the head of a religious order. After I converted I sponsored, mentored and taught other people considering conversion to Catholicism. Catholicism fits what I believe. Every class I sat thinking, "this is exactly right. This fits what I know."
What, for goodness sake, makes you think that you know more about me or about what it means to be Catholic than all those people?
The pedophile ring is being taken down by engaged, angry, Catholics. There are consequences and the Vatican is feeling those. Things are changing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I support the Church the same way that I support my country when I protested against the invasion of Iraq.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lalo, you are simply going to have to take my word for it that for the past 35 years I have studies several religions - even took some seminary classes. Attended services regularly (weekly or better) for Catholic, Methodist, UCC, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Lutheran congregations. Worked as a Director of Children's Ministries for a large church. Attended mass regularly for 10 years. Formally studied for a year to convert to Catholicism, talked to many priests, directors of faith formation, engaged lay Catholics, nuns, and even the head of a religious order. After I converted I sponsored, mentored and taught other people considering conversion to Catholicism. Catholicism fits what I believe. Every class I sat thinking, "this is exactly right. This fits what I know."
What, for goodness sake, makes you think that you know more about me or about what it means to be Catholic than all those people?
The pedophile ring is being taken down by engaged, angry, Catholics. There are consequences and the Vatican is feeling those. Things are changing.
As to your first question, you've directly contradicted and dismissed Catholic dogma in this thread alone. You have ideas of reforming the Church with no apparent awareness of your helplessness within the Church hierarchy. You don't seem to understand Catholic theology or bureaucracy, despite your many years of study.
And no, sadly, there are no consequences and nothing is changing. The Church has waited out worse enemies than you. And you don't even particularly qualify as an enemy in the first place -- you pose no threat, not even of leaving for a less corrupt religion.
You're living in a dream world, where your passive outrage will somehow upset the Church hierarchy, reform the Vatican, revise Catholic theology, and redefine priestly relations with little boys. For your sake, as well as for all those little kids, I hope you realize that your only power over the Church is to leave it and try to hold them accountable by secular authorities.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(For the record, I didn't and don't think this is a road worth going down, nor do I think this is a particularly good way of going about it)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that one does not have to leave the Church in order to demand that it be held accountable by secular authorities? Again, take the example of Fr. Doyle. He has spent the past 25 years making sure that the Church faced civil consequences as an advocate for victims and as an expert witness for plaintiffs in hundred of lawsuits against the Church all over the world.
You think he should have just walked away? What makes you think you know better than he does? You haven't even given a reason that you know better than I do. If my opinion on specific dogma (about which you are mistaken) isn't a problem for the priests who taught me, the Church professionals hired to teach me, my sponsors or the bishop who approved my reception into Full Communion, why do you think it is a problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You do realize that one does not have to leave the Church in order to demand that it be held accountable by secular authorities? Again, take the example of Fr. Doyle. He has spent the past 25 years making sure that the Church faced civil consequences as an advocate for victims and as an expert witness for plaintiffs in hundred of lawsuits against the Church all over the world.
You think he should have just walked away? What makes you think you know better than he does? You haven't even given a reason that you know better than I do. If my opinion on specific dogma (about which you are mistaken) isn't a problem for the priests who taught me, the Church professionals hired to teach me, my sponsors or the bishop who approved my reception into Full Communion, why do you think it is a problem.
But isn't Father Doyle's example proving my point rather than yours? If he's really worked this hard within the Church for 25 years (and I don't doubt it), why hasn't he put fear of God in the Vatican? Why have they continued as ever, without suffering any real consequences from the revelations of the past few decades? I don't expect that one man could make a huge difference alone, but isn't it better to address the disease of corruption rather than individual symptomatic cases of rape?
Yes, I say I he should have left the Church and taken as many people with him as he could. He should have demanded that Americans stop contributing to the Church until complete transparency is brought to the pedophile ring protected by the Vatican. It's not only the moral option, it's the practical option.
That said, I understand your stance. You don't want to leave the Church or your community of Catholics. And you believe that your protests will have some progressive change within the Church. I disagree, but I guess we'll have to leave it to time to tell who was right.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, Where do you think the many, many progressive changes that the Church has gone through have come from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twenty-five years is a tiny amount of time for such a deep change. And they have changed. Not willingly and they still don't "get it", but they are putting in place the policies that the laity are demanding. And the laity are demanding things from the bishops which is, in itself, a big and positive change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the laity are demanding things from the bishops which is, in itself, a big and positive change.
In fact, I seem to recall that once there were very serious, even grave, consequences to the laity if they demanded anything from the clergy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The letter, written in 1993, focused on protecting the church’s image by preventing the scandal from becoming public – the very essence of an international wave of allegations now battering the Roman Catholic clergy and the Vatican.
“It is a situation which we wish to avoid at all costs,” the late Bishop Joseph Windle of Pembroke, Ont., wrote in Feb. 10, 1993, to the Pope’s envoy to Canada, Carlo Curis.
quote:The letter said it is “fortunate” that many of the victims were of Polish ancestry, devout Catholics who would be less likely to complain to secular authorities.
posted
Yes it is and fairly typical of the attitude of the bishops. More concern for reputation of the Church than for the Church itself. And, as in so many things, it is the cover-up that is really damning.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well here has been pretty par for the course for hatrack's interesting midroads. Err, elsewhere it is turning into a flood of all of these ridiculous stories about Church malfeasance followed by incredulity in the face of some of the church's more callous or easily misinterpretable defenses (at one point they dragged gay marriage into this to act as a bogeyman. really? really really?)
and this turns into a back and forth between the diehard internet catholic apologists who keep reliably citing pages upon pages of dense dogma and insisting that there are 'internal mechanisms' or procedural issues that the non-catholics are just not considering or .. whatever .. and frustration and incredulity abound.
Like, two days ago: people going 'how could this get worse for the church' followed by more ugly news, followed by 'okay well that answered that question'
I don't even know how best to deal with it aside from stay out of the way. This has to be so disheartening for Catholics but at the same time there's something so so SO wrong with the church that they desperately don't want to address or may just be too institutionally malfeasant to be ABLE to address.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Give me a link and I'll go address it!
It's hardly even one thing at this point. Stories of screwed up church dealings are just pouring in at this point. Just go to google news and search for 'catholic'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.
The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.
The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.
The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.
posted
i mean okay this is part of what is making this so surreal.
quote:The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
quote:The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.
Read that. Seriously! They did not think this through at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really! The only Church institutions that would be put at risk by this legislation are those that insist on protecting child molesters and those who enabled them. And they darn well should be put at risk.
Instead of children being put at risk.
ETA: I looked for a comments page but didn't find one. I did send an email.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Really! The only Church institutions that would be put at risk by this legislation are those that insist on protecting child molesters and those who enabled them.
Not technically true . . . financial reparations could very easily affect programs/people that were completely uninvolved in wrongdoing.
"We can't fulfill our moral responsibility to victims of childhood sexual abuse because we're doing other good things with the money" is a pretty lame excuse, however.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better way for me to have put it is for that programs and people who are dependent on denying justice to victims should be put at risk. A shake up will ultimately be a good thing.
One thing, I have not found it difficult to direct my donations to specific charities or projects or parish projects instead of to the Church in general. At least if I can trust the people accepting those donations.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to sexual abuse specifically, not child abuse in general. The statistics are difficult to find and are likely underreported but the most likely estimate I could find is that %14 percent of sexual crimes against boys and 6% against girls are committed by women. Now, that doesn't take into account whether most people commit one crime or hundreds, but I still think that it indicates pretty safely that, most, sexual abuse of children is done by men.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. There has been amusement at simultaneous stances by some those that proclaim that the child molestation scandals are 1) caused by the Jews and 2) that the persecution of Catholics is like the persecution of Jews.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has also been a lot of blaming it on Vatican II and liberalization which is demonstrably wrong as sexual abuse by clergy has been occurring for hundred of years.
Vatican II and liberalization could be blamed for people talking about it, rising up against it, but that is a good thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This begs another question: how much of this bat@#!$ craziness was evident during his time as a bishop?
I didn't expect to be reading Constantine's Sword and have it be so dramatically relevant in terms of current events.
Maybe Babini's denial of having said those words is true. Man, I hope so...but I also hope that question will be investigated thoroughly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:On Monday, the Vatican published a one-page document outlining the official steps dioceses should take if a priest is accused of abuse. The document did not appear to contain new guidance -- only to consolidate existing practices into one document.
Father Ciro Benedettini of the Vatican press office told CNN it was designed primarily to help the media understand Church procedures.
The document roused further criticism from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) whose spokesman Mark Serrano said: "It's sad when the Vatican has to make it clear to bishops that they must follow secular laws. It's fairly obvious that if you are saying you will now cooperate with the police then you are admitting that you have not been."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
