posted
A rare (to me at least) newspaper article focusing on the possibility of whether rates of girls being abused is under-reported.
quote:An American study commissioned eight years ago and paid for by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops found that boys were overwhelmingly the likeliest target of predator priests. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, based on voluntary disclosure from church authorities (some refused to comply), determined boys accounted for 81 per cent of sex assaults. Most abuse for all victims occurred between 1960 and the 1980s.
But London-based lawyer Robert Talach, who represented McLauchlin and other Sylvestre victims, expects that male-female ratio to change within five to 10 years to reflect a trend that began in the 1970s when the church welcomed female altar servers. Researchers say disclosure of abuse is typically delayed for about 30 years, which means women assaulted as children are just starting to come to terms with what happened.
“In some of our Sylvestre cases, which are (from) the ‘70s, many of the women were victimized under the pretenses of ‘I’m training you to be one of these new, upcoming female altar servers,’" said Talach, who has represented more than 100 victims of clergy abuse, most of them male.
“We’ve seen priests using that to look innovative to their parishioners, but in reality it was to allow them access to women if their predilection was female.”
quote: Wall’s perspective on the degree of female abuse is unique. He was a Benedictine monk for 12 years, working as a “fixer” dispatched to tidy up messy sexual problems of priests and laymen at troubled parishes and schools. He said when a girl required surgery after rape, the code was that she needed a “hernia” operation.
In a bizarre twinning, he counselled accused priests and heard confessions from traumatized victims. He also worked on cases where priests impregnated girls then procured abortions for them.
“That is so prevalent, it happens all the time,” he said of the abortion runs, which in part accounts for his belief that teenaged girls are the silent majority of priest-related sexual abuse.
By age 33, Wall deduced most, if not all, of the 195 parishes and hundreds of religious orders in the U.S. employed “fixers” like him to wipe down crime scenes that involved children.
quote: 'No Belgian church escaped sex abuse', finds investigation
Child sex abuse by clergy or church workers has taken place in every Roman Catholic congregation in Belgium, according to an independent commission investigating paedophilia allegations.
quote:I want to appeal to Britain's Roman Catholics now, in the final days before Joseph Ratzinger's state visit begins. I know that you are overwhelmingly decent people. You are opposed to covering up the rape of children. You are opposed to telling Africans that condoms "increase the problem" of HIV/Aids. You are opposed to labelling gay people "evil". The vast majority of you, if you witnessed any of these acts, would be disgusted, and speak out. Yet over the next fortnight, many of you will nonetheless turn out to cheer for a Pope who has unrepentantly done all these things.
I believe you are much better people than this man. It is my conviction that if you impartially review the evidence of the suffering he has inflicted on your fellow Catholics, you will stand in solidarity with them – and join the protesters.
Some people think Ratzinger's critics are holding him responsible for acts that were carried out before he became Pope, simply because he is the head of the institution involved. This is an error. For over 25 years, Ratzinger was personally in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the part of the Vatican responsible for enforcing Catholic canonical law across the world, including on sexual abuse. He is a notorious micro-manager who, it is said, insisted every salient document cross his desk. Hans Küng, a former friend of Ratzinger's, says: "No one in the whole of the Catholic Church knew as much about abuse cases as this Pope."
We know what the methods of the church were during this period. When it was discovered that a child had been raped by a priest, the church swore everybody involved to secrecy, and moved the priest on to another parish. When he raped more children, they too were sworn to secrecy, and he was moved on to another parish. And on, and on. Over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped as part of this misery-go-round. The church insisted all cases be kept from the police and dealt with by their own "canon" law – which can only "punish" child rapists to prayer or penitence or, on rare occasions, defrocking.
Ratzinger was at the heart of this. He refuses to let any police officer see the Vatican's documentation, even now, but honourable Catholics have leaked some of them anyway. We know what he did. We have the paper trail. Here are three examples.
In Germany in the early 1980s, Father Peter Hullermann was moved to a diocese run by Ratzinger. He had already been accused of raping three boys. Ratzinger didn't go to the police, instead Hullermann was referred for "counselling". The psychiatrist who saw him, Werner Huth, told the Church unequivocally that he was "untreatable [and] must never be allowed to work with children again". Yet he kept being moved from parish to parish, even after a sex crime conviction in 1986. He was last accused of sexual abuse in 1998.
In the US in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining that he was thinking of the "good of the universal Church" and of the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age" of the priest involved. He was 38. He went on to rape many more children. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Ratzinger thinks the "good of the universal Church" – your church – lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment.
In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock Father Lawrence C Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. His rapes often began in the confessional. Ratzinger never replied. Eight months later, there was a secret canonical "trial" – but Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was cancelled. Ratzinger advised him to take a "spiritual retreat". He died years later, unpunished.
These are only the cases that have leaked out. Who knows what remains in the closed files? In 2001, Ratzinger wrote to every bishop in the world, telling them allegations of abuse must be dealt with "in absolute secrecy... completely suppressed by perpetual silence". That year, the Vatican actually lauded Bishop Pierre Pican for refusing to inform the local French police about a paedophile priest, telling him: "I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration." The commendation was copied to all bishops.
Once the evidence of an international conspiracy to cover up abuse became incontrovertible to any reasonable observer, Ratzinger's defenders shifted tack, and said he was sorry and would change his behaviour. But this June, the Belgian police told the Catholic Church they could no longer "investigate" child rape on Belgian soil internally, and seized their documents relating to child abuse. If Ratzinger was repentant, he would surely have congratulated them. He did the opposite. He called them "deplorable", and his spokesman said: "There is no precedent for this, not even under communist regimes." He still thinks the law doesn't apply to his institution. When Ratzinger issued supposedly ground-breaking new rules against paedophilia earlier this year, he put it on a par with... ordaining women as priests.
There are people who will tell you that these criticisms of Ratzinger are "anti-Catholic". What could be more anti-Catholic than to cheer the man who facilitated the rape of your children? What could be more pro-Catholic than to try to bring him to justice? This is only one of Ratzinger's crimes. When he visited Africa in March 2009, he said that condoms "increase the problem" of HIV/Aids. His defenders say he is simply preaching abstinence outside marriage and monogamy within it, so if people are following his advice they can't contract HIV – but in order to reinforce the first part of his message, he spreads overt lies claiming condoms don't work. In a church in Congo, I watched as a Catholic priest said condoms contain "tiny holes" that "help" the HIV virus – not an unusual event. Meanwhile, Ratzinger calls consensual gay sex "evil", and has been at the forefront of trying to prevent laws that establish basic rights for gay people, especially in Latin America.
I know that for many British Catholics, their faith makes them think of something warm and good and kind – a beloved grandmother, or the gentler sayings of Jesus. That is not what Ratzinger stands for. If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than his victims, shouldn't that make you think again about your faith? Doesn't it suggest that faith in fact distorts your moral faculties?
I know it may cause you pain to acknowledge this. But it is nothing compared to the pain of a child raped by his priest, or a woman infected with HIV because Ratzinger said condoms make Aids worse, or a gay person stripped of basic legal protections. You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or stand with his Catholic victims. Which side, do you think, would be chosen by the Nazarene carpenter you find on your crucifixes?
quote:The first child sex scandal in the Catholic church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on. By the 1960s, the problem had become so dire that a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on.
What has made a bad situation worse, as the eminent QC Geoffrey Robertson argues in this coolly devastating inquiry, is canon law – the church's own arcane, highly secretive legal system, which deals with alleged child abusers in a dismayingly mild manner rather than handing them over to the police. Its "penalties" for raping children include such draconian measures as warnings, rebukes, extra prayers, counselling and a few months on retreat. It is even possible to interpret canon law as claiming that a valid defence for paedophile offences is paedophilia. Since child abusers are supposedly incapable of controlling their sexual urges, this can be used in their defence. It is rather like pleading not guilty to stealing from Tesco's on the grounds that one is a shoplifter. One blindingly simple reason for the huge amount of child abuse in the Catholic church (on one estimate, up to 9% of clerics are implicated) is that the perpetrators know they will almost certainly get away with it.
For almost a quarter of a century, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the man who is now Pope, was in supreme command of this parallel system of justice – a system deliberately hidden from the public, police and parliaments and run, so Robertson maintains, in defiance of international law. Those who imagine that the Vatican has recently agreed to cooperate with the police, he points out, have simply fallen for one of its cynical public relations exercises. In the so-called "New Norms" published by Pope Benedict this year, there is still no instruction to report suspected offenders to the civil authorities, and attempting to ordain a woman is deemed to be as serious an offence as sodomising a child. There have, however, been some changes: victims of child abuse are now allowed to report the matter up to the age of 38 rather than 28. If you happen to be 39, that's just tough luck. As Robertson wryly comments, Jesus declares that child molesters deserve to be drowned in the depths of the sea, not hidden in the depths of the Holy See.
How can Ratzinger get away with it? One mightily important reason, examined in detail in this book, is because he is supposedly a head of state. The Vatican describes itself on its website as an "absolute monarchy", which means that the Pope is immune from being sued or prosecuted. It also means that as the only body in the world with "non-member state" status at the UN, the Catholic church has a global platform for pursuing its goals of diminishing women, demonising homosexuals, obstructing the use of condoms to prevent Aids and refusing to allow abortion even to save the life of the mother. For these purposes, it is sometimes to be found in unholy alliance with states such as Libya and Iran. Neither is it slow to use veiled threats of excommunication to bend Catholic politicians throughout the world to its will. If Pope Benedict were to air some of his troglodytic views with full public force, Robertson suggests, the Home Office would have been forced to refuse him entry into Britain.
"Petty gossip" is how the Pope has described irrefutable evidence of serious crimes. His time as the Vatican official in charge of overseeing priestly discipline was the period when, in Robertson's furiously eloquent words, "tens of thousands of children were bewitched, buggered and bewildered by Catholic priests whilst [Ratzinger's] attention was fixated on 'evil' homosexuals, sinful divorcees, deviate liberation theologians, planners of families and wearers of condoms".
Yeah, I dunno what else to say! The catholic church has pretty much irreparably harmed themselves.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nuns at the college where I work got together after Benedict's "election" and got hammered on cheap whiskey. You don't know righteous anger until you've seen a righteously angry Nigerian nun.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are times when I don't know what to believe. I don't know how big, or how bad, the sex-abuse coverup is, but by now it's pretty impossible to deny it ever happened. Haggling over numbers is a bit moot at that point.
All I can say is, I'm ashamed this happened in my church, and there are definitely times where I feel like I'm Catholic despite the people in charge, now and historically.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is big and bad and the current crisis (abuse has been happening for almost as long as the Church has been around) has been going on for 30 years. And it hasn't "happened"; it is still happening. Children are still being hurt and bishops are still covering it up and stonewalling.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was considering what happens to a religion when its moral center and its administrative center are so very separate, when it struck me, has there really ever been any other than very brief time when the Pope and Cardinals were reasonably the moral center of Catholicism? I can't think of one.
Also, it struck me, the current Pope is, to put it mildly, not a good person. This certainly isn't new. There have been out and out monsters in the papacy. But it makes me wonder about the sin of the Cardinals who elect them. That's got to be a pretty serious sin to so violate their responsibility. From what I can recall, the election of the Pope is doctrinally supposed to be the result of some pretty heavy guidance from God. To elevate someone like Ratzinger to papacy would thus involve decisively turning your back on God's guidance on a very important matter. I don't remember any sort of discussion with this in my education, but that really feels like a mortal sin. If that is actually the case, a majority of the College of Cardinals currently have an unrepented mortal sin on their souls.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Although they might not realize. After so many years of Pope John Paul II elevating only "yes-men" they may be so steeped in a corrupt culture that they have forgotten how to follow their own conscience much less the voice of God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meanwhile, the pope's UK visit will likely help smooth out concern and confusion over the recent controversies generated by church leadership oh wait nope
quote:The Pope has compared "atheist extremism" to the Nazi tyranny of WWII in a speech given in Edinburgh as he begins a four-day visit to the UK.
The pontiff praised Britain's fight against the Nazis - who "wished to eradicate God" - before relating it to modern day "atheist extremism".
Afterwards his spokesman Federico Lombardi said: "I think the Pope knows rather well what the Nazi ideology is".
Humanists have said the comments were a "terrible libel" against non-believers.
Blogger Ian Dunt, writing for Politics.co.uk, said the speech was "highly political" and might be seen as a warning about the direction of British society.
A senior Papal aide had earlier made remarks about England's "secularised" society, comparing it with a Third World country.
Cardinal Walter Kasper - who has been urged to apologise - later pulled out of the UK trip, with the Vatican citing illness.
In an interview with a German magazine he said: "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country."
He went on to say "aggressive neo-atheism" was widespread in England.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Afterwards his spokesman Federico Lombardi said: "I think the Pope knows rather well what the Nazi ideology is".
I suppose I shouldn't have laughed at that. It was a bitter laugh if that counts for anything.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "You know what's bad. Those forces which don't allow us to spread and cover up the rape of children. Those are the bad guys. Not like us, the people who support and protect child rapists. You need more of us." is a pretty hard sell. I would not be at all surprised if the Pope and the hierarchy's behavior is currently the main driver for people who were Catholic having abandoned the religion and potentially taking up atheism. That pro-child rapist stance is just a big sticking point for a lot of people.
Though, to be fair, I imagine the Nazis were probably against raping children in their care. The Catholic hierarchy was pretty slow in strongly opposing the Nazis. Maybe they're just trying to catch up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... In an interview with a German magazine he said: "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country."
Sigh, taking shots at the atheists AND the immigrants of colour. Bah.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He later issues an explanation which made him sound worse. As per usual, there's 'don't get me wrong, that totally wasn't racist'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In an interview with a German magazine he said: "England today is a secularised, pluralistic country. When you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you'd landed in a Third World country."
*laugh* The funny thing about this is that the skin color thing never occurred to me, so I was left thinking, "Huh? What about being secularized makes Britain look like a Third World country? In fact, isn't the reverse usually true?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The funny thing about this is that the skin color thing never occurred to me
worry not; they're on top of clearing that up
quote:Cardinal Walter Kasper, the senior Catholic who prompted controversy on the eve of Pope Benedict's visit by comparing Britain to a third world country, has refused to apologise for his comments, his spokesman said today.
Kasper, 77, the Vatican's leading expert on relations with the Church of England, told a German magazine: "When you arrive at Heathrow you think at times that you've landed in a third world country."
Hours before the Pope flew to Scotland early today to start his four-day visit to the UK, Kasper's withdrawal from the trip for health reasons was announced.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic church in Scotland, said he now expected an apology from Kasper.
"Sometimes we make awkward, difficult remarks ourselves," he told BBC Radio Scotland.
"And simply, if we do that sort of thing we apologise for it, and I'm sure Cardinal Kasper will apologise for any intemperate remarks which he made some time ago."
But Monsignor Oliver Lahl, Kasper's spokesman, said the cardinal considered the matter closed following a Vatican statement that claimed he was merely highlighting Britain's multi-ethnic makeup.
"Kasper meant to say there are people there from all around the world and you could be in Mumbai, Kinshasa, Islamabad or Nairobi," said Lahl.
"It was not a negative connotation, it was the opposite of racism. He meant the UK is no longer a mono-ethnic or mono-religious state, and can be a positive example for Europe."
remember: not a negative connotation. and definitely the opposite of racism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. Because Kinshasa, Islamabad, Mumbai, and Nairobi are "multi-ethnic". Assumming that "multi-ethnic" means "not white". And "third world" means "positive example."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, when people say 'Third World' I always think 'positive example'. If there weren't so many awful and harmful ways their behavior was working in the world, it would be funny to see just how stupid these leaders think people really are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People don't understand. He was just saying, "Man, there sure are a lot of poor darkies around." I mean, what's to be upset about that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't blame the church, but the imperfect people that are part of it. Whether they are in leadership positions or not, we are all human, and we can all make mistakes or the choice to do evil.
Every church or group has its people that go against what they teach. I knew missionaries I served with that got sent home and excommunicated for questionable activity. Human's aren't perfect, we just try to be.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Like an elderly guy who has been isolated from the real world for decades.
ETA: That "Exactly" was to MrSquicky. Geraine, of course you can blame the Church. What do you think the Church is but the people in it? You can certainly darn well blame the Vatican and the Pope. Sure they are people who make mistakes but these people have a great deal of power and have been making some humdinger mistakes for generations. Often because they won't acknowledge that they are people who make mistakes.
Geraine, if we can't blame 'the church' for this sort of institutionalized apathy, negligence, contempt, and even outright evil, then frankly 'the church' can't be credited with any of the good things, and there are many, that its millions of members worldwide do and have done over centuries either. You simply cannot have it both ways, and there's no working around that with 'everyone's a little bit bad'. Everyone is a little bit bad, yes, but not everyone's attitude towards the rape and sexual molestation of children is that secular authorities should mind their own business. The people who are aren't trying to be perfect, they're trying desperately to cultivate an image of perfection, which is definitely not the same thing. I certainly don't recall anything in the Bible about that, though perhaps there's something the Borgias might have to say on the subject.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You can't blame the church
I am sure the pope wants us to think so, but there is absolutely no reason why the church cannot be blamed. It is an institution as fallible as any other, whether they claim godly righteousness or magic people who speak to or are spoken to by god.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Gerain is saying is we cannot blame the Catholic church insofar as the doctrine they propagate specifically condemns this sort of thing. Compared to sinning against the holy ghost, only offenses committed against children are condemned as strongly by Jesus.
Where the church falls on a scale of 0-10, 0 being absolutely complicit in these abuses, and 10 being absolutely stalwart in doing all that could reasonably be asked of them in dealing with these priests, is where I think blame enters in.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't blame the church, but the imperfect people that are part of it
If the structure of the church is such that imperfect people are more likely than others to be put in a position where they abuse others, then I think you can blame the church. The LDS church hasn't had the same sort of problems as the Catholic church and part of the reason for that is, I think, the difference in the structure of the church, the nature of priesthood offices, etc.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think what Gerain is saying is we cannot blame the Catholic church insofar as the doctrine they propagate specifically condemns this sort of thing.
I disagree with this, in that the structure and doctrine of the Church lends itself especially to these sorts of abuses (those of the hierarchy, not the child rape).
I had a thread not that long ago about abstinence only education. When it's done by Christians with their traditional way of doing things, it is an abject failure. There is some evidence coming along now that other ways of doing this are much more successful.
I don't grant that because they are teaching the kids, emphatically so, that they shouldn't have sex, it's not their fault that the kids often will engage in even riskier sexual behavior than if they had not gotten this education at all. Because their content and style of teaching consistently gets these results while other ways don't, their program about abstinence is responsible for the kids sexually risky behaviors.
I see similar factors operating here. The structure and doctrine of the Catholic Church contains elements that produce this sort of behavior. They have done so consistently over the history of the Church. Other structures and doctrines do not have these effects. Thus, along with the people in the Church, you can blame the structure and doctrines of the Church for this
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think we most certainly can blame the church. The institutionalized secrecy and the ban against marriage are certainly parts of the problem.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think what Gerain is saying is we cannot blame the Catholic church insofar as the doctrine they propagate specifically condemns this sort of thing.
The doctrine they propagate also conceals these acts from law enforcement and protects the criminal abusers in an attempt to 'save face' for the church and shield them from criticism, in a cycle that negligently got tens of thousands of children abused.
Tens of thousands.
Putting blame on the church isn't just in order, it's the first order of the day!
Pope JPII delivered a mass in Scotland in 1982 and drew a crowd of 300,000. Today at the same venue: 70,000. You want to turn Catholicism from a world power at the core of christian mythicism into an archaic curiosity, a broken has-been? You wanna do it to yourself in practically a single generation? This is how to do it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think maybe he will understand why? Sadly, he seems more likely to blame it on "secular society."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with this, in that the structure and doctrine of the Church lends itself especially to these sorts of abuses (those of the hierarchy, not the child rape).
The moment you wrote out the word 'structure' your premise differed from mine.
As far as their holy books are concerned, child abuse is absolutely condemned in as harsh of terms as they can be. "Better that they place a millstone around their neck and jump into the sea."
But perhaps I am overstepping doctrinal speaking as their clergy being completely unable to marry I think correlates with this problem. However the fact they choose to sweep it under a rug of secrecy is not something that is doctrinal supported but is an institutional problem.
In playing the blame game. In regards to the bible giving license for priests to sexually abuse children, no way. As far as the Catholic church "doing all that could be reasonably asked of them in dealing with these priests," yes.
----
Samp: You are misunderstanding me.
quote:The doctrine they propagate also conceals these acts from law enforcement and protects the criminal abusers in an attempt to 'save face' for the church and shield them from criticism, in a cycle that negligently got tens of thousands of children abused.
What doctrine are you talking about? When I use the term I am talking purely about scripture and it's interpretation. Not historical precedence in how a church is run.
I tend to be slow to judge as it seems irrational to me that Pope Benedict found out about these abuses and thought, "Darn it, another stupid kid ratted out a priest, better move him to another parish where he can start dating again." I would like to understand what motivations went into such a terrible response to a horrific problem. "The Pope hates children," is a conclusion I would only come to were every single other explanation adequately ruled out.
quote:As far as their holy books are concerned, child abuse is absolutely condemned in as harsh of terms as they can be. "Better that they place a millstone around their neck and jump into the sea."
I do agree with this. It's pretty clear that the actual tenets that the leaders of Catholicism are supposed to be following are very much at odds with the kind of leadership that takes exception to secular authority wanting to take a stronger hand in investigating child abuse at the hands of clergy.
quote: But perhaps I am overstepping doctrinal speaking as their clergy being completely unable to marry I think correlates with this problem. However the fact they choose to sweep it under a rug of secrecy is not something that is doctrinal supported but is an institutional problem.
I'm not sure that the inability to marry is linked myself, either, or if it's necessarily tied to the secrecy. I do sometimes wonder, though, if that in the sense that it sets a bit of a gap between the clergy and the laity that it makes that impulse easier.
quote: I tend to be slow to judge as it seems irrational to me that Pope Benedict found out about these abuses and thought, "Darn it, another stupid kid ratted out a priest, better move him to another parish where he can start dating again." I would like to understand what motivations that went into such a terrible response to a horrific problem. "The Pope hates children," is a conclusion I would only come to were every single other explanation adequately ruled out.
This seems to me to be a pretty sharp departure from what Samprimary and others have actually accused the RC leadership from doing, though. They are accusing the leadership of primarily acting to save face, not of actual mustache-twirling child-hating villainy. Now, ten or fifteen years ago, I would perhaps have been skeptical that the leadership's first impulse was towards face-saving. Now? At this point, honestly I am more than a little shocked that anyone doesn't believe that is their first impulse.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, It looks like you are talking about the priests raping children. That's not what I think any of the people criticizing the Church are talking about. I explicitly said as much in the sentence you quoted.
I don't know that anyone is blaming the Catholic Church as a whole or the Pope for the first time a priest under their control raped a child. However, when the Church hierarchy finds out about this and shelters and protects that priest so they he can go on to rape other children, that we are blaming on them. When they threatened bishops with excommunication if they went to the police with these heinous crimes, we blame them. And as they are currently lobbying against laws designed to prevent and/or redress child rape, we blame them for that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The doctrine of celibacy is part of the problem. When the Church makes basically no distinction between a priest engaging in consensual sex with an adult and raping a child, that is a big part of the problem and it is doctrinal. (BlackBlade, our doctrine is based on more than just Scripture.) When, because of celibacy, young men think that they can avoid dealing with their "bad" sexual urges by becoming priests, that is part of the problem.
quote: I tend to be slow to judge as it seems irrational to me that Pope Benedict found out about these abuses and thought, "Darn it, another stupid kid ratted out a priest, better move him to another parish where he can start dating again." I would like to understand what motivations that went into such a terrible response to a horrific problem. "The Pope hates children," is a conclusion I would only come to were every single other explanation adequately ruled out.
Honestly, that is sadly not as far off as it should be, though more in line of, "darn it another kid is talking. This looks bad. We have to protect our reputation. How can we make this go away quietly? Let's move the priest to another parish where no one knows him and hope he doesn't do it again. And we'll pressure the kid and his family to make sure that they don't talk. With any luck, no one will believe him anyhow. Also, we have to make sure that any of the clergy who might be concerned about this is ordered to keep their mouths shut."
Yes. That bad.
And the doctrine of obedience makes that possible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, our doctrine is based on more than just Scripture.
That's fine if you are using the word that way, I'm not, but I don't think you are wrong.
MrSquicky:
quote:I don't know that anyone is blaming the Catholic Church as a whole or the Pope for the first time a priest under their control raped a child. However, when the Church hierarchy finds out about this and shelters and protects that priest so they he can go on to rape other children, that we are blaming on them. When they threatened bishops with excommunication if they went to the police with these heinous crimes, we blame them. And as they are currently lobbying against laws designed to prevent and/or redress child rape, we blame them for that.
I'm not arguing with you on this point. Merely proposing that Geraine might have meant we can't blame the church in that Christians should universally understand their religion abhors this sort of behavior. The black mailing, strong arming, rug sweeping, are all failings on the part of the Catholic Church as an institution.
Maybe the distinction isn't very useful, I personally think this is the sort of thing that requires heads to be busted and butts to be kicked, I just wanted to caution people to be gentle before they unleash their emotions at Geraine.
I get that almost every time something bad is done in the name of religion somebody says, "Don't blame the religion, blame the people." It's an overused truth-ism, even if I do believe it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our doctrine is based on tradition as well as Scripture. To be clear, I don't think that those things I mentioned are good doctrine or that one has to believe them to be Catholic (obviously!) but our Church does teach those things. The current Pope decided both as Pope and in his former position as Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the group charged with making sure people were behaving according to doctrine - formerly the Inquisition) that keeping things quiet and protecting the reputation of the Church was more important that protecting children from harm or giving comfort to those that had been harmed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: Again, it's fine you are using it that way, heck as a Catholic yourself I'll grant that's how Catholics mean the word 'doctrine.'
For me, my church has business enterprises and interests for example. Doctrinally there is no basis for that, either in the affirmative or negative. One might argue that because the prophet has OK'd it, it can't be wrong, but for me that's as far as it goes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By doctrine I mean things that are taught by the Church. Obviously, "it is okay to rape children" is not doctrine, but celibacy is and obedience to the hierarchy is though I would (and have) argue that it is not necessarily received doctrine. The Pope thinks it is anyway.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: By doctrine I mean things that are taught by the Church. Obviously, "it is okay to rape children" is not doctrine, but celibacy is and obedience to the hierarchy is though I would (and have) argue that it is not necessarily received doctrine. The Pope thinks it is anyway.
I see, I think I understand your POV. Thanks for writing it all out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You can't blame the church
I am sure the pope wants us to think so, but there is absolutely no reason why the church cannot be blamed. It is an institution as fallible as any other, whether they claim godly righteousness or magic people who speak to or are spoken to by god.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
