Roman Catholic Pedo Sex Scandals [Archive]

The Wizard

03-24-2010, 17:15

Irish Victims of Clerical Sexual Abuse: Papal Letter May Not Be Enough (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1974115,00.html)

To Ireland's victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy, Pope Benedict XVI offered an apology: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry." For Ireland's bishops, the pontiff had a reprimand: "Serious mistakes were made. All this has seriously undermined your credibility." Thus the highlights of an eight-page letter from Rome received at Mass around Ireland on March 21.

In an unprecedented move (the Vatican had previously commented on the Irish clerical sex scandal only in private letters), Benedict apologized to victims and accused Ireland's bishops — past and present — of "grave errors of judgment" and "failures of leadership" in their handling of sex-abuse cases in the church.

The Pope also wrote that a team of Vatican inspectors would be sent to dioceses, seminaries and religious congregations in Ireland. But victims' groups were unimpressed, charging that the papal letter had failed to address the cover-up of child abuse by the Irish Catholic authorities exposed in recent weeks. "He didn't apologize for anything the church has done, only for the actions of pedophile priests," says Andrew Madden, who was abused as an altar boy and is a member of the victims group One in Four. "[The Church's actions] weren't just down to errors of judgment. This was a proactive covering up of the sexual abuse of children to avoid scandal for the church. Pope Benedict completely failed to own up to this."

The shocking extent of child abuse by clergy in Ireland's parishes and Catholic institutions was exposed last year in two government inquiries, known as the Ryan Report and the Murphy Report. The first described "endemic sexual abuse" at schools and orphanages run by religious orders from the 1930s to the 1990s, while the latter accused the Catholic Church, the state and the Irish police of colluding in the covering up of sexual abuse committed by priests in the archdiocese of Dublin. (Catholic Europe: How Damaged is the Papacy?)

In recent weeks, however, the scandal has reached the very top of the Irish Church hierarchy. Cardinal Sean Brady — Ireland's most senior Catholic — has faced calls to resign over his handling of the case of one of Ireland's most infamous pedophile priests. That's because in 1975, Brady had met with young people who had been abused by Father Brendan Smyth. The victims were asked to sign an oath of secrecy, promising not to reveal details of an investigation into Smyth's actions. Brady did not contact the police after the meetings, and Smyth went on to abuse dozens more Irish children before being convicted of 90 offenses against children some 20 years later. Some of those abused by Smyth claim other victims committed suicide because of the abuse. In the past week, two more Irish bishops have also apologized for their handling of abuse allegations in their own dioceses. (See why Ireland is running out of priests.)

In 1999, journalist Mary Raftery's documentary film States of Fear was broadcast on Irish television. The film brought to public attention for the first time the systemic nature of abuse at Catholic institutions in the past. Since then, Raftery has campaigned for an investigation into child abuse to be held in every Catholic diocese in Ireland. (Comment on this story.)

"I think Irish society should take this letter extremely seriously," says Raftery. "For years, we handed over all responsibility for our morality to these people who now stand condemned with such devastation by their own Pope."

Raftery believes the Church's handling of child-abuse allegations has prompted many people to challenge its role in modern Irish society. It's estimated that around a third of Irish Catholics attend Mass regularly, but the Catholic Church runs over 90% of the country's elementary schools and holds positions on the management boards of public hospitals — roles that Raftery believes are no longer tenable.

"We now know there was decades of disgraceful behavior that was absolutely contrary to every single thing [the Church] preached. With this knowledge, it's going to be impossible for people to establish the same relationship of trust with the Catholic Church. I think it has vanished."

With the reputation of the Catholic Church at an all-time low in Ireland, convincing young men to join the priesthood may seem like a lost cause. But Father Patrick Rushe, coordinator of vocations for the Catholic Church in Ireland, believes the damage can be repaired.

"I was happy that [Pope Benedict] said sorry and I think it was long overdue," says Rushe. "But these are our own problems to solve and the Irish church has to take responsibility for what happened in the past."

So, does Rushe believe the Church can recover? "People committed to their faith are just about hanging on," he says. "But I don't think it would take a huge amount of further revelations to undermine the goodwill that's left."

Further revelations may, in fact, not be very far away. Last week, Northern Ireland's Health Minister Michael McGimpsey said that a state inquiry into institutional and clerical child abuse should be considered. For campaigner Mary Raftery, the possible consequences of such a probe are clear. "It would inevitably expose a range of cover-ups and would make the church's role [in Irish society] unsustainable," she says. "The number of people whose hands aren't dirtied by this is quite small."

Pope Accepts Resignation of Irish Bishop (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8585012.stm)

The Pope has accepted the resignation of an Irish bishop found to have mishandled allegations of clerical sex abuse in his County Cork diocese.

Bishop John Magee stepped aside in March 2009 after an independent report found his Cloyne Diocese had put children at risk of harm.

"I take full responsibility for the criticism of our management of issues in that report," he said on Wednesday.

The 2008 report cited an inability to respond appropriately to abuse claims.

It was conducted by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland (NBSC), a body set up by, but independent of the Catholic Church.

The inquiry was separate to last year's Murphy report on decades of abuse mishandling in the Dublin archdiocese and the Ryan report, which detailed physical and sexual abuse at Catholic-run orphanages and industrial schools in the Irish Republic.

Bishop Magee was born in Newry, County Down, and served as private secretary for three popes.

The NBSC inquiry examined how the Cloyne diocese dealt with a series of complaints of sexual abuse against two priests.

One woman reported "Father B" in 1996 as saying she had a year-long sexual relationship him and that she had seen him kissing her 14-year-old son.

Three other complaints of abuse were made against this priest between 1995 and 1997, and in 2005 a woman claimed that she had sex with the priest from the age of 13.

The conclusions of the report were a devastating critique of child protection practices in the diocese.

It said child protection practice was inadequate and in some respects dangerous as it apparently focused on the needs of the accused rather than victims.

It failed to act effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible complaint of child sexual abuse was made.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, said he wanted to acknowledge Bishop Magee's "long and varied ministry".

"I assure him of my prayers at this time and wish him good health in his retirement," he said.

"However, foremost in my thoughts in these days are those who have suffered abuse by clergy and those who feel angry and let down by the often inadequate response of leaders in the church."

I haven't seen any thread on this in the Backroom, and it surprised me. This seems a pretty big issue to me, not just because the events themselves are horrible, but because of the way the Church is attempting to deal with this. And this forum is divided between anticlerical folks (or atheists; I prefer to use a more neutral term) and religious people, too.

Now, you can put me into the anticlerical camp pretty squarely, but even so, I think no reasonable person can possibly condone or support the way in which the Roman Catholic Church has responded to this crisis. Not just the Irish one: living in the Netherlands as I do, the Dutch one, too, as well as the revelations in Germany and Austria (and, I've read, Belgium and Poland too). Here, you have a Pope who as head of the successor agency of the Inquisition, tried to systematically sweep every allegation of sexual abuse under the carpet, and shut out the proper (read: secular) authorities in the process. Nothing has changed. What Benedict XVI wants more than anything is for the media to shut up about it and for believers to forget about it. Biting the bullet, admitting the systematic nature of the abuse and of the Church's misconduct, and allowing neutral, secular investigations into the matter, upon which will follow criminal trials, are the very last things he wants to do. Not that I blame that on the Pope especially; I very much doubt John Paul II would have reacted any differently. This is something inherent about the Catholic Church, especially when it concerns its conservative wing, embodied by the current Pope.

Then, you have a clerical organization that responds to these shocking revelations in the following way, and I quote:

[...] Papal officials, however, defend Benedict's silence. "The Pope was not part of what happened back then, and he shouldn't be part of it now," says a Vatican insider. Indeed, the Vatican has mounted an aggressive campaign to portray the scandals as an attempt to besmirch the Pope and discredit the church as a whole. "Over recent days some people have sought, with considerably persistance, [to] personally involve the Holy Father in questions of abuse," Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said in a written commentary. Another senior official goes further. "They want to involve the Pope at all costs," he tells TIME. "It's a desire to destroy the church, and this is an operation that has been well planned. They don't like the church's teachings on moral questions and sexuality, and this is how they think they can strike."

(From the European edition of TIME Magazine, March 29, 2010)

Such a heartless response to all the suffering of children in the power of the Church's priests should be seen as characteristic of this organization by now. How can anybody agree to such a cynical organization investigating its own crimes? How can anyone, religious or not, simply accept the Church's "sorry, our bad" and leave it at that? What are they thinking in the Vatican, merely leaving it at a simple apology and thinking they can put it all to rest that way? The Pope even failed to address the other, newer scandals: all he talked about in his letter was Ireland! It is clear that the Vatican is in no way interested in doing anything about the systematic abuse of children by its priesthood, and wants nothing more than to shut up and forget about it as soon as possible.

If anything, I view this as yet more proof of the evils of organized religion (especially one so hierarchically and strictly set up as the Roman Catholic Church), and I sincerely hope that one of the good things to come out of all this evil is for Catholics across Europe, and across the world maybe, to rethink their membership in, and allegiance to this organization and free themselves from its grasp. That would at least prevent people from putting their children in the power of an organization so clearly uninterested in their welfare.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2010, 17:39

Ancient dusty news. Roman Catholic priests abuse children because they are taught all sexual contact is profane, so they act out horrifically. Also, the Church always acts for it's own greater integrity, and this has become increasingly callous as power has become centralised.

Ultimately all benifices and Bishoprics are decided by the Pope, so he is solely responsible

Mooks

03-24-2010, 17:59

Any chance there is a increase of atheism in Ireland?

Personally I doubt it.

Pannonian

03-24-2010, 18:41

Time to ask the chicken and egg question again.

Which came first? The bishop or the altar boy?

Hax

03-24-2010, 18:48

Which came first?

The bishop.

Strike For The South

03-24-2010, 18:50

Time to ask the chicken and egg question again.

Which came first? The bishop or the altar boy?

The bishop.

I approve

Scienter

03-24-2010, 18:56

I think the Church is handling all of this very poorly. They protect their own and I think it's dreadful. Perhaps the Church should reconsider its stance on demanding celibacy from its clergy.

Time to ask the chicken and egg question again.

Which came first? The bishop or the altar boy?

The bishop.

:laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

03-24-2010, 19:25

Ratzinger issues apology:

Papal Bull. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001182.htm) *

*Get it? :wink3:

I would say Rome can kiss my **** (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901112.htm) over this 'apology' as well, if only they wouldn't probably do so too.

Fragony

03-24-2010, 19:43

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/pope001_gr.jpg (https://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/?action=view&current=pope001_gr.jpg)

Pannonian

03-24-2010, 19:57

Sarmatian

03-24-2010, 20:00

Louis VI the Fat

03-24-2010, 20:12

Tell the pope to kiss your ring. Tsk, I meant my ring of course.

Looky here! I've got it hidden in my pocket. Together with lots of little sweets!

All the good priests who've done their homework today, can move to the front of the class and put their little hands in my pockets to feel for a nice sweet treat!

You're too old.:snobby:

You've got no any idea how rosey and round my firm, cute cheeks are! :blush:

The Wizard

03-24-2010, 20:31

And here I thought I'd elicit at least one humble note of protest ~;)

Fragony

03-24-2010, 20:45

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/ohohoh.jpg (https://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/?action=view&current=ohohoh.jpg)

Rhyfelwyr

03-24-2010, 23:38

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2010, 00:25

Does this ever happen in the Orthodox Churches? All this could be solved if priests were just allowed to marry. It's only a tradition of the church, it's not like it's a scritural command that can't be changed.

Can, probably has, and probably will. That is called “translation”.

And yes, I'd expect similar things to occur in Orthodox Church.

Rhyfelwyr

03-25-2010, 00:50

Can, probably has, and probably will. That is called “translation”.

IIRC the no marriage thing for priests is justified as a tradition of the church, and is not a doctrine taken from the scripture, since Paul even says the ideal bishop should be married.

Centurion1

03-25-2010, 02:02

dear god all the catholic hate. i know longer feel safe near any of you.

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2010, 02:58

IIRC the no marriage thing for priests is justified as a tradition of the church, and is not a doctrine taken from the scripture, since Paul even says the ideal bishop should be married.

That wasn't what I referred to in that sentence. I specifically meant scripture which can change, too: the scripture is not some given truth that cannot be altered in any way, even in the relatively short timespan of 500 odd years of bible proliferation.

Strike For The South

03-25-2010, 03:14

dear god all the catholic hate. i know longer feel safe near any of you.

https://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1834/cryingbabyy.jpg (https://img89.imageshack.us/i/cryingbabyy.jpg/)

Myrddraal

03-25-2010, 03:21

I tried to think of a serious response to this, but I was laughing too hard. This thread is comic genius.

Askthepizzaguy

03-25-2010, 06:48

Gosh, I could sure go for a Baby Ruth right about now.

PanzerJaeger

03-25-2010, 08:25

Does this ever happen in the Orthodox Churches? All this could be solved if priests were just allowed to marry. It's only a tradition of the church, it's not like it's a scritural command that can't be changed.

Possibly in regard to a small percentage of the girls, but a lack of normal heterosexual relations does not lead to pedophilia. If the celibacy requirement was the problem then these priests would simply be having affairs with women of age.

No, I fear that pedophiles target the priesthood, much like they target the Boy Scouts and the teaching profession, to establish themselves in positions of power over children. The problem isn't celibacy, it's the screening process... and of course the cover ups. Figuring out how to root out pedophiles during seminary is going to be a challenge.

It is also worth mentioning during the fallout from all this that the vast majority of priests are good men and that the Catholic Church does amazing charity work in some of the most poverty stricken areas of the world.

The Wizard

03-25-2010, 16:38

Pope Benedict faces child abuse cover-up queries (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm)

Members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests show pictures of Pope Benedict and of Fr Lawrence Murphy, outside The Vatican
Clerical abuse victims demanded answers outside the Vatican

Questions are being raised about whether Pope Benedict was personally involved in covering up a case of child sex abuse by a Roman Catholic priest.

Documents seen by the New York Times newspaper suggest that in the 1990s, long before he became Pope, he failed to respond to letters about a US case.

Fr Lawrence Murphy, of Wisconsin, was accused of abusing up to 200 deaf boys.

Defending itself, the Vatican said US civil authorities had investigated and dropped the case.

For more than 20 years before he was made Pope, Joseph Ratzinger led the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - the Vatican office with responsibility, among other issues, for the Church's response to child abuse cases.

Allegations that the Church sought to cover up child abuse by Catholic priests in Europe have haunted the Vatican for months.

Lawsuits

The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally.

They concerned the Rev Lawrence Murphy, who worked at a Wisconsin school for deaf children from the 1950s.

Two archbishops wrote letters to the Vatican office led by Cardinal Ratzinger calling for disciplinary proceedings against Fr Murphy, but the Vatican halted the process, according to the documents.

On Thursday, a group of clerical abuse victims handed out copies of the documentation during a news conference outside the Vatican.

Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), told reporters: "This is the most incontrovertible case of paedophilia you could get," according to AP news agency.

"We need to know why he [the Pope] did not let us know about him [Murphy], and why he didn't let the police know about him, and why he did not condemn him, and why he did not take his collar away from him."

Two lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of five men alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did not take sufficient action against the priest.

'Tragic case'

Alleged victims quoted by the New York Times gave accounts of the priest pulling down their trousers and touching them in his office, his car, his mother's country house, on class excursions and fund-raising trips, and in their dormitory beds at night.

According to the New York Times, Fr Murphy was quietly moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools.

The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, called it a "tragic case" but pointed out that the Vatican had become involved only in 1996, after US civil authorities had dropped the case.

"During the mid-1970s, some of Fr Murphy's victims reported his abuse to civil authorities," the Rev Lombardi said in a statement.

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith was not informed of the matter until some 20 years later."

The Milwaukee diocese was asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", the Rev Lombardi added.

He also said that Fr Murphy's poor health and a lack of more recent allegations had been factors in the decision not to defrock him.

But the Vatican's decision not to carry out its own investigation is the question that brings the now Pope's own involvement centre stage, says BBC religious affairs correspondent Christopher Landau.

Victims of sexual abuse by priests have long argued that the Church has been more interested in protecting its reputation and helping its priests than seeking justice for victims, our correspondent adds.

Last week the Pope issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of clerical cover-up scandals.

But he has yet to comment on his handling of a child sex abuse case involving a German priest, which developed while Benedict was overseeing the Munich archdiocese.

The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys in the 1970s when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia.

Hullermann was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church, serving as a village priest until 2008.

Boy oh boy, what a surprise.

Fr Murphy died in 1998, with - in the Church's view - no official blemish on his priestly record.

:wall:

Does this ever happen in the Orthodox Churches? All this could be solved if priests were just allowed to marry. It's only a tradition of the church, it's not like it's a scritural command that can't be changed.

Abuse like in the Catholic Church takes place in all religious communities. The more closed, the higher the chance there is abuse. Take, for example, the abuse of children in haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jewish circles, which was discovered to be widespread and criminal in Israel. Another example: polygamous Mormons. I don't doubt this is also the case in Muslim institutions/circles, or Protestant ones. A Church like the Orthodox one, with its hierarchy just a degree less severe than in its Catholic counterpart? Definitely.

This seems to be a problem every religion (the Abrahamic ones, that is, though I wonder what the situation is in Buddhist monasteries with lots of kids in them in SE Asia) seems to share. But none have as systematic a problem as the Roman Catholic Church, and none try to keep it quiet and protect the perpetrators as systematically as it, either. But don't think this is somehow magically limited to just one religious community. Looking at the evidence I very much doubt this has much to do with sexually frustrated geriatrics in dresses. It has everything to do with power. And power over defenseless children is something clergy-run institutions have across the globe.

Strike For The South

03-25-2010, 16:39

deleted

There was really no one else?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2010, 16:48

Abuse like in the Catholic Church takes place in all religious communities. The more closed, the higher the chance there is abuse. Take, for example, the abuse of children in haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jewish circles, which was discovered to be widespread and criminal in Israel. Another example: polygamous Mormons. I don't doubt this is also the case in Muslim institutions/circles, or Protestant ones. A Church like the Orthodox one, with its hierarchy just a degree less severe than in its Catholic counterpart? Definitely.

This seems to be a problem every religion (the Abrahamic ones, that is, though I wonder what the situation is in Buddhist monasteries with lots of kids in them in SE Asia) seems to share. But none have as systematic a problem as the Roman Catholic Church, and none try to keep it quiet and protect the perpetrators as systematically as it, either. But don't think this is somehow magically limited to just one religious community. Looking at the evidence I very much doubt this has much to do with sexually frustrated geriatrics in dresses. It has everything to do with power. And power over defenseless children is something clergy-run institutions have across the globe.

Such abuse takes place anywhere children are cared for. A paedophile Ring was busted last year at a Devon day care centre in Plymouth.

The Catholic church has a particularly acute problem because of it's attitude to sex, certain schools and seminaries actually make abusers in the same way prisons and concentration camps did in the past. The reports on the Irish case serve to demonstrate this, so Panzer is wrong there I'm afraid. HOWEVER, there isn't actually any evidence that abuse in religious orders is generally higher than in, say, private schools through virtue of them being specifically religious.

Also, Mormons are not Polygamous, haven't been for 100 years.

ajaxfetish

03-25-2010, 17:06

Also, Mormons are not Polygamous, haven't been for 100 years.
Though there are, of course, still polygamous break-off sects, so I can understand what he meant. Thank you for highlighting the distinction between these groups and the church itself.

Ajax

The Wizard

03-25-2010, 17:32

That's what I meant when I said "polygamous Mormons" instead of just Mormons.

Also, although I accept your argument that there is no clear proof for a higher rate of abuse within religious communities (or, more specifically, institutions run by them), I think there are a lot more cases of said communities attempting to cover it up. You can see this in all three specific examples I named: the Catholic Church does it, the haredim do it, and so do polygamous Mormon splinter sects. In fact, off the top of my head, so did the Protestant Church of the Netherlands when it attempted to protect a pastor or something like that from prosecution in the eighties/nineties.

The problem (perhaps) doesn't lie with the religious nature of these institutions, though I might point out that closed religious communities with their own institutions which are opaque to broader society and subject to little to no supervision (such as Catholic or Protestant boarding schools, ultra-orthodox Jewish communities and institutions, or sects like the polygamous Mormon splinter groups) are in all likelihood far more likely to perpetrate such acts because their authorities have so much more power due to the community's isolation from the rest of society.

The problem definitely, however, lies with the systematic attempts by such religious communities, through their greater organizations, such as churches, to cover up their crimes, and to prevent prosecution of their clergymen. That is a clear difference with secular institutions. That's why the Vatican's attempts to shift attention to the broader problem of pedophilia and child abuse is so ludicrous: in the secular part of society (which, thankfully, is larger now than ever) it isn't anywhere near as endemic.

ICantSpellDawg

03-25-2010, 17:45

Pannonian

03-25-2010, 17:51

I support the church in this witch hunt.

Break out the ducking stools!

Lemur

03-25-2010, 18:09

The scandal is atrocious and cannot be defended, HOWEVER the idea that any ofthis is new news is absurd.
I was under the impression that the stuff breaking in Germany was, in fact, new information. Incorrect?

I support the church in this witch hunt.
Maybe not the most auspicious image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Early_Modern_Europe) to evoke when defending the Holy Catholic Church ...

P.S.: Speaing of Catholicism, just watched the 2008 version of Brideshead Revisited, and couldn't relate at all. The whole thing seemed to revolve around the idea of Catholicism versus happiness, a struggle I really don't understand. And given how many happy Catholics I know, I find the whole premise a bit silly. Any Catolics see it and have a different opinion?

Strike For The South

03-25-2010, 18:12

You know happy catholics?

j/k but not really.

Allot of the mexican catholics I know have no where near the guilt complex that there white brothers do.

Must have something to do with Europe

ICantSpellDawg

03-25-2010, 18:29

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2010, 18:34

Nah not really; and the overly “religious” lifestyle (which is really what that “guilt complex” is all down to) isn't unique to Europe, or Catholicism. The USA has its fair share of it, too. Admittedly those are more often than not some kind of Protestant. (Of which Europe has plenty, too.) However the various “cults” the USA has given birth to should provide ample example of people taking a particular set of guidelines a little too much for granted and fail to apply some critical thinking of their own.

And then there are the various Islamic and Jewish sects.

Tellos Athenaios

03-25-2010, 18:48

The new accusation against the pope is that, as head of the organization within the church responsible for investigating clerical sex abuse cases, he failed to dicipline a priest who had already been investigated by civil authorities and had the case dropped. He failed to dicsipline a priest who, as the civil authorities had already determined, was not guilty enough of the crimes to be tried. What is the problem? Sometimes priests are wrongly accused -a after the authorities know about it, do the necessary investigation and come up with nothing, what else do you need to do about it?

I thought the issue in the first place was the church doing things without legal guidance, now that they do it with legal guidance, they are held to a higher diciplinary standard than civil aurthorities? Fishing, my friends.

The front page stuff is the deaf issue that I've just summarized.

The real thing is that these cases are not unique to say USA or say Ireland or say Germany; but that it appears to be a systemic cancer within the Catholic church (hierarchy). (Nothing suprising there with 20/20 hindsight.)
In that context the disappointing apology by the pope, and the lack of “action”, visible measures taken and implemented by the Church are cause for a fair share of “told you so, they're rotten to the core” type of reply. Most of it isn't exactly news; but the real thing is that in case of, say, Ireland, the authorities apparently “colluded” with the Church in covering it up; and in general that the victims' stories were originally ignored by their parents, civil authorities, and ultimately the Church itself. In that context the apology is not merely disappointing it is also wholly inadequate, insufficient, and not at all an end of this story.

And then you have these hints of Ratzinger himself being directly implicated in the whole sordid affair. So on one hand you have sincere pressure for structural reform within the Church; and on the other hand the gossipy busybodies sticking their nose in now it reeks. This is where front page news is merely a sideline of the real news/story.

The Wizard

03-25-2010, 18:53

The scandal is atrocious and cannot be defended, HOWEVER the idea that any ofthis is new news is absurd. This scandal has been exposed and worked on for 10years. The most recent developments are intended to implicate the Pope. No evidence has come up to implicate him, but there is a fishing expedition. Remember, this scandal is due to old school attitudes toward how to deal with your own. The modern day demands legal consequences for these actions, but years ago, everyone covered up thier own problems and kept them in-house. It was terrible and has been strongly addressed. The Pope has apoligized, Bishops have apoligized, everyone recognizes that horrible mistakes were made and lawsuits have resulted - paying out untold millions.

What do some peopel want? They want to bankrupt the church - this is their goal. Demand openess from the hierarchy and the accept the resignation of those who conspired to cover it up and keep children in danger, whatever their motives. What more can the church do? The apologies don't work, the admissions of fault won't work, they payouts won't work.

The agenda is to wound and kill the church. I didn't feel that way when the scandal broke years ago, but the newest episode is a fishing expedition.

I support the church in this witch hunt.

What a load of flaming hokey. It's not new in the Netherlands, nor is it new in Germany or Austria, strongholds of the Old World Church. So drop the Ameri-/Hibernocentric attitude, first of all.

And I don't really care what the attitudes were in the '50s, it doesn't change a thing about the fact that what happened was criminal and prosecution is in order. People who covered it up are accomplices and accessoires to the deeds done, they are culpable as well. A simply "sorry 'bout that, my bad" is letting these criminals off easy. And the Church that covered it up, too. But hey, I guess being under the aegis of the Holy Father allows that, huh? Just confess and say hail Mary 2000 times and it'll all be A-OK.

ICantSpellDawg

03-25-2010, 18:58

I agree with the basic premise. The issue here is that, while the morality of sexually abusing children doesn't change, the acceptability of being open about it has. The same parents who are open about telling the world that their children were sexually assaulted (which they should be) are also the ones who 20-50 years ago would have kept quiet about it even if they had known. Propriety in dealing with issues has evolved over time. Remember, the concept of "civil authorities" investigating these types of crimes is relatively new itself. Historicaly, organizations policed themselves, obviously to a more poor result.

What this seems to have been was exceedingly poor judgement on the part of the church hierarchy in general over the years. Nobody is accusing these Bishops and priests of paeophilia or collusion with the intent of encouraging paedophilia, what we are doing is holding people who lived in an earlier time to a modern standard of official propriety. This is very different from the accusations of concentration camp guards commiting genocide themselves. We are accusing preists, bishops and the Pope of making poor judgement calls. There is no criminal behaviour in most cases even being alledged, yet this is getting the kind of press it is. Ask yourself why that is.

Anyone who attempted to cover it up should is a different story and should be charged - but the accusations agaisnt the Pope have nothing to do with that, in either case.

The Wizard

03-25-2010, 19:07

HoreTore

03-25-2010, 21:44

Does this ever happen in the Orthodox Churches? All this could be solved if priests were just allowed to marry. It's only a tradition of the church, it's not like it's a scritural command that can't be changed.

Don't know about the Orthodoz, but....

Norwegian Lutheran missionaries are well known for their ability to bring both gospel and that special handmade proteinshake to the starving children of the 3rd world.

Banquo's Ghost

03-26-2010, 12:29

P.S.: Speaing of Catholicism, just watched the 2008 version of Brideshead Revisited, and couldn't relate at all. The whole thing seemed to revolve around the idea of Catholicism versus happiness, a struggle I really don't understand. And given how many happy Catholics I know, I find the whole premise a bit silly. Any Catolics see it and have a different opinion?

The 2008 adaptation was truly awful, so I can see why it confused. The ITV (1984?) series was much better and included some of the subtleties examined in the novel.

The book (highly recommended) is actually dealing with some universal Catholic themes of redemption and original sin as guilt, but very much from an Anglo-Catholic perspective. The history of Anglo-Catholicism is complex (this is the original usage of Roman Catholics in Great Britain, as opposed to mildly discontented Anglicans) but much of the guilt-syndrome expressed (particularly in the described aristocratic family) is to do with the centuries-long internal conflict that as a Catholic in a Protestant state, one develops deep paradoxes about temporal allegiances. For years, the Anglo-Catholic nobility was considered explicitly disloyal to their country, and faint suspicion lingers even now. (For example, Catholics in the army are called left-footers still, and Tony Blair's flirtation with conversion whilst in office caused some choler amongst the more excitable of the chattering classes). This ancient personal conflict led to all sorts of unhealthy complexes about religion, loyalty and one's proper place - and thus impacted on happiness - which is what Waugh was exploring through his characters. Cleverly, he also included an ironic undercurrent of homosexuality the concealment of which has also caused deep unhappiness because of personal pressure to conform (and the condemnation of which, the Catholic Church is among the foremost perpetrators).

Therefore, the book is not really about Catholicism generally, but an intriguing sub-set that exemplify some of its more challenging moral choices.

The Wizard

03-26-2010, 13:20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8588294.stm

The Vatican has attacked the media over charges that the Pope failed to act against a US priest accused of abusing up to 200 deaf boys two decades ago.

A Vatican newspaper editorial said the claims were an "ignoble" attack on the Pope and that there was no "cover-up".

The Vatican seems to be spending more time accusing the press and the victims of abuse of slander than doing anything about the situation whatsoever.

Fragony

03-26-2010, 13:24

The accusation against the man who is now the Pope is just one case amongst thousands. That's what I'm saying. Abuse was/is endemic. Ignoring it, covering it up and protecting the people who did it from getting prosecuted like they deserved is systematic. And that isn't a phenomenon limited to the Catholic religion, either.

Latest developments certainly are shocking. If he tried to cover up abuse Ratzinger should be trialed. I'd throw him in a cell for a few hours the second he touches the ground just to make a point.

Lemur

03-26-2010, 13:47

Therefore, the book is not really about Catholicism generally, but an intriguing sub-set that exemplify some of its more challenging moral choices.
That's very helpful; thank you, kind sir.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2010, 14:49

Abuse like in the Catholic Church takes place in all religious communities. The more closed, the higher the chance there is abuse. Take, for example, the abuse of children in haredi (ultra-orthodox) Jewish circles, which was discovered to be widespread and criminal in Israel. Another example: polygamous Mormons. I don't doubt this is also the case in Muslim institutions/circles, or Protestant ones. A Church like the Orthodox one, with its hierarchy just a degree less severe than in its Catholic counterpart? Definitely.

Abuse is not a function of religion, but of unquestioned authority. The Catholic priest's personal restrictions combined with his unquestioned authority exacerbate the problem, but they are not a root cause. Exactly the same sort of abuse was rampant in the secular Private School system in England until 20-30 years ago.

This seems to be a problem every religion (the Abrahamic ones, that is, though I wonder what the situation is in Buddhist monasteries with lots of kids in them in SE Asia) seems to share. But none have as systematic a problem as the Roman Catholic Church, and none try to keep it quiet and protect the perpetrators as systematically as it, either. But don't think this is somehow magically limited to just one religious community. Looking at the evidence I very much doubt this has much to do with sexually frustrated geriatrics in dresses. It has everything to do with power. And power over defenseless children is something clergy-run institutions have across the globe.

This is, as I said, a problem with any figure of authority, and certainly isn't restricted to "Abrahamic" religions. Hindu "Holy men" do exactly the same thing.

al Roumi

03-26-2010, 15:40

A slight interlude, brought to you by Steve Bell, courtesy of the Grauniad:

https://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y315/alh_p/Steve-Bell-001.jpg

Lemur

03-26-2010, 18:08

Abuse is not a function of religion, but of unquestioned authority.
A slightly different take (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html), written by a prominent gay Catholic:

Well: imagine you are a young gay Catholic teen coming into his sexuality and utterly convinced that it's vile and evil. What do you do? I can tell you from my own experience. You bury it. But of course, you can't bury it. So you objectify sex; and masturbate. You cannot have sexual or even emotional contact with a teenage girl, because it is simply impossible, and you certainly cannot have sex with another teenage boy or you will burn in hell for ever ... so you have sex with images in your own head. Your sex life becomes completely solitary. It can be empowered by pornography or simply teenage imagination. Some shard of beauty, some aspect of sensuality, some vision of desire will keep you sexually energized for days.

Now suppose your powers of suppression and attachment to religious authority are also strong — perhaps stronger because you feel so adrift you need something solid to cling onto in your psyche. And you know you cannot marry a woman. But you want to have status and cover as a single man. If this is the 1950s and 1960s, it's into the Church you go. You think it will cure you. In fact, it only makes you sicker because your denial is buttressed by their collective denial. And the whole thing becomes one big and deepening spiral of lies and corruption.

Many of these tormented men have arrested sexual and emotional development. They have never had a sexual or intimate relationship with any other human being. Sex for them is an abstraction, a sin, not an interaction with an equal. And their sexuality has been frozen at the first real moment of internal terror: their early teens. So they tend to be attracted still to those who are in their own stage of development: teenage boys. And in their new positions, they are given total access to these kids who revere them for their power.

So they use these children to express themselves sexually.

It's a coherent theory, at least, which is more than I can say for a lot of the speculation on the subject.

Louis VI the Fat

03-26-2010, 18:33

imagine you are a young gay Catholic teen coming into his sexuality

Now suppose your powers of suppression and attachment to religious authority are also strong

Oh, silly, who do you think orders all those fancy robes and fabulous churches? Heterosexuals?

https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8688/p341264innsbruckbaroque.jpg

HoreTore

03-26-2010, 18:43

Metrosexuals!!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2010, 21:14

A slightly different take (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html), written by a prominent gay Catholic:

Well: imagine you are a young gay Catholic teen coming into his sexuality and utterly convinced that it's vile and evil. What do you do? I can tell you from my own experience. You bury it. But of course, you can't bury it. So you objectify sex; and masturbate. You cannot have sexual or even emotional contact with a teenage girl, because it is simply impossible, and you certainly cannot have sex with another teenage boy or you will burn in hell for ever ... so you have sex with images in your own head. Your sex life becomes completely solitary. It can be empowered by pornography or simply teenage imagination. Some shard of beauty, some aspect of sensuality, some vision of desire will keep you sexually energized for days.

Now suppose your powers of suppression and attachment to religious authority are also strong — perhaps stronger because you feel so adrift you need something solid to cling onto in your psyche. And you know you cannot marry a woman. But you want to have status and cover as a single man. If this is the 1950s and 1960s, it's into the Church you go. You think it will cure you. In fact, it only makes you sicker because your denial is buttressed by their collective denial. And the whole thing becomes one big and deepening spiral of lies and corruption.

Many of these tormented men have arrested sexual and emotional development. They have never had a sexual or intimate relationship with any other human being. Sex for them is an abstraction, a sin, not an interaction with an equal. And their sexuality has been frozen at the first real moment of internal terror: their early teens. So they tend to be attracted still to those who are in their own stage of development: teenage boys. And in their new positions, they are given total access to these kids who revere them for their power.

So they use these children to express themselves sexually.

It's a coherent theory, at least, which is more than I can say for a lot of the speculation on the subject.

We Englishmen have ever held this to be the case, we issued a statement to Parliament to the effect in the 1380's.

KukriKhan

03-27-2010, 14:46

The Wizard

03-27-2010, 15:01

Abuse is not a function of religion, but of unquestioned authority. The Catholic priest's personal restrictions combined with his unquestioned authority exacerbate the problem, but they are not a root cause. Exactly the same sort of abuse was rampant in the secular Private School system in England until 20-30 years ago.

Which is what I said. Secular institutions generally have stronger and more stringent oversight, a lot of religious communities like to uphold an almost omerta-like attitude when it comes to events within their walls. This gives their leaders even more power. And, as we have seen with all these Catholic priests, makes them a lot harder to prosecute.

This is, as I said, a problem with any figure of authority, and certainly isn't restricted to "Abrahamic" religions. Hindu "Holy men" do exactly the same thing.

Note I mused on the subject of SE Asian Buddhist monasteries where the vast majority of kids spend a couple years of their childhood. It seems combining endemic secrecy, immense power within one's own flock and the moral authority of a priest concocts a deadly combination of factors which encourage abuse on a scale like this.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-28-2010, 00:46

Note I mused on the subject of SE Asian Buddhist monasteries where the vast majority of kids spend a couple years of their childhood. It seems combining endemic secrecy, immense power within one's own flock and the moral authority of a priest concocts a deadly combination of factors which encourage abuse on a scale like this.

Which is where we differ fundamentally, you keep saying "encourage" as though supposedly religious people are actually perverts, or made perverts by their religion.

HoreTore

03-28-2010, 07:51

To me, it's a Law and law-enforcement issue. Sometimes those pesky Statutes of Limitation get in the way. If a kid got abused at age 12, he has 10 years from his 18th birthday to report it and have law enforcement pursue the claim. After that, it's water under the bridge. We ought to look at changing that. And of course, those who aid, abet or conceal a criminal act are, or should be, prosecuted too.

I can't see that just being a Catholic, or even just being a RC Priest automatically compels one to abuse underagers. And as far as I'm concerned, a paedo's motivations are irrelevant to prosecution. Mildly interesting, in the same way analyzing a serial killer's mind would be; but still: irrelevant.

Well, Statutes of Limitations does have a role; after a certain time has passed the need to finally know the truth far outweighs the need for punishment of the guilty...

But having to report sexual abuse before you turn 28? Nah, that's far to quick and that needs to be changed ASAP...

But then again; what would be the best outcome for the victims here? To have the abusing priests put in jail while they claim innocence and try to weasel their way out of prison, or to have them go free but reveal the whole truth about their actions?

Plus a hefty economic compensation for a life in ruins in either case, of course...

The Wizard

03-28-2010, 17:16

The Dutch government, in any case, is going to try to remove the statutes of limitation for crimes of child abuse.

Which is where we differ fundamentally, you keep saying "encourage" as though supposedly religious people are actually perverts, or made perverts by their religion.

Not true. I wasn't talking about religious values, if you'd read my post. I was discussing how the immense power religious organizations invest in their leaders and representatives (plus the fact that they always cover for them) encourages abuse, not the values of the religion in question. Which does link into my rock solid belief that organized religion is a bad thing.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-28-2010, 18:48

Not true. I wasn't talking about religious values, if you'd read my post. I was discussing how the immense power religious organizations invest in their leaders and representatives (plus the fact that they always cover for them) encourages abuse, not the values of the religion in question. Which does link into my rock solid belief that organized religion is a bad thing.

It can only "encourage" such excesses among people who already have such a prediliction; unless you subscribe to a nhilistic view of humanity. I think the word "permits" is far more accurate, and less offensive.

The Wizard

03-28-2010, 22:49

"Permits" is a little too congenial a word for abuse as endemic and as systematic as this. And if you're offended, take it to the religious institutions that operate these systems.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-29-2010, 00:45

"Permits" is a little too congenial a word for abuse as endemic and as systematic as this. And if you're offended, take it to the religious institutions that operate these systems.

So you are deliberately trying to be offensive? I fail to see your point, encourage is a very congenial verb.

Centurion1

03-29-2010, 02:04

This happens in other churches. The RC Church gets all the flak for three reasons.
A- We are the RC church, people resetn our awesomeness and our popery, which brings me to my next point......

B- We have such a centralized church it is very easy to attack us, which is why everyone thinks its okay to make jokes about the pope being a nazi, which i personally find distasteful and worth fighting over.

C- the Church Hid it. Which is inexcusable these men should be castrated and fed to hungry razorbacks.

A Very Super Market

03-29-2010, 02:30

News? Hasn't the pedophilic priest been the image of molestation for a while now? Apart from the hideously inaccurate picture of a shady man in a trenchcoat stalking your children. No, the catholic church has had this problem for so long, with the same response. It's a product of the system, although really, that seems to be the cause of most our problems.

Odin

03-29-2010, 03:07

It's a product of the system, although really, that seems to be the cause of most our problems.

Really you think? deleted by moderator as offensive and trollish thier continued support of the church, is the problem.

Hello, my name is Odin and this is a one off cameo Im back to the desert soon to look for bad guys, you filthy heathens.

sua sponte

The Wizard

03-29-2010, 15:44

Does anyone else chuckle when "Odin" posts in a thread about the Roman Catholic Church? :viking:

This happens in other churches. The RC Church gets all the flak for three reasons.
A- We are the RC church, people resetn our awesomeness and our popery, which brings me to my next point......

B- We have such a centralized church it is very easy to attack us, which is why everyone thinks its okay to make jokes about the pope being a nazi, which i personally find distasteful and worth fighting over.

C- the Church Hid it. Which is inexcusable these men should be castrated and fed to hungry razorbacks.

Such a centralized church, with such a centralized effort to cover up the scandal. And such an obsession with calling endemic abuse of children "slander" and "gossip". Beautiful.

So you are deliberately trying to be offensive? I fail to see your point, encourage is a very congenial verb.

How am I "deliberately trying to be offensive" when I state the simply fact that power corrupts? And assert that clergymen get a lot of power, and a lot of protection. Why hold back when you're not going to get punished anyhow, even when caught? Which is not very likely in the first place.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-29-2010, 16:33

How am I "deliberately trying to be offensive" when I state the simply fact that power corrupts? And assert that clergymen get a lot of power, and a lot of protection. Why hold back when you're not going to get punished anyhow, even when caught? Which is not very likely in the first place.

Well, on the other hand the Church is supposed to select for devotion to God and spiritual integrity, among other things. Most of the priests I have met have been good people, generally more generous with their time and compassion than the average man on the street. You basic premise in this thread is that the Roman Catholic Church encourages abuse because it uses priests, and that this is encouraged by other Churches as well. Your focus on Church and "The Abrahamic" religions paints those institutions as essentially rotten by virtue of their very nature.

The Wizard

03-29-2010, 23:34

Incorrect, I talk in general terms and say that the combination of isolation from society, moral authority, and protection by their superiors encourages abuse because it's unlikely the priests'll get caught. That is only partially a result of religion (the moral authority part), the rest is the fault of a criminal organization (the Church).

Odin

03-29-2010, 23:54

Does anyone else chuckle when "Odin" posts in a thread about the Roman Catholic Church? :viking:

Yes I am hysterical, so are the criminals running the church I slap my knee and double over in laughter everytime I drive by a church and people are walking in. I find it particularly funny and chuckle when I think of how much they, and thier ancestors have paid to help finance murder, rape, and fleecing of the poor. When do the yuks end?

Incorrect, I talk in general terms and say that the combination of isolation from society, moral authority, and protection by their superiors encourages abuse because it's unlikely the priests'll get caught. That is only partially a result of religion (the moral authority part), the rest is the fault of a criminal organization (the Church).

You might want to add a bit about entitlement due to thier positions as clergy and they convey the word of god. You see a lot of them havent got the message, god goes under all sorts of mythos now, problem is the catholics have had such a big market share for so long they cant cope with the fact that human morality and ethics has moved beyond the dogma of religous edicts created for a world without the ability to read and write.

They havent adapted at all to the new reality of humans ability to rationalize thier own relationship with god, gods or what have. Free will wasnt part of the package when the story tellers wove the story. An antiquated set of principals set in a barbaric world where at any moment a vast army could come and wipe you out. You bet your ass they needed faith, what else did they have? Church hasnt caught up yet that the middle class of western society has been allowed the comfort to think past thier immediate survival so all they have is the poor, or innocent.

And where does that leave us? Priests still putting thier hands down kids pants and denial from the head huncho, in the meantime this weekend you will see them people will file in. Listen to the surmons, give over thier change, cross themselves and expect salvation. We should have paddy wagons stationed outside and bring these people to jail, because all that cash given over? yeah thats covering legal fee', housing and meals for people who commited crimes against children.

AMEN!

Seamus Fermanagh

03-30-2010, 00:44

Odin:

I disagree with you more or less completely.

Thanks for keeping the tone a little less personally offensive.

Centurion1

03-30-2010, 01:38

Odin your knowledge of the average catholic is as immense as your knowledge of rhetoric!

Look i can't defend my church for what they did with those bishops, etc. but i can point out that western culture seems to be having a turkey shoot highlighting everything the church has ever done wrong. i mean really the inquisition, get over it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-30-2010, 02:08

This is a very good point, even the "current" scandal covers 30+ years. If you compare that to most secular scandals etc. the view usually only goes back about 10, I suspect this badly distorts the perspective of prolific the problem is in the Church as a whole, or in the Roman Church in particular.

Louis VI the Fat

03-30-2010, 02:21

Allegations of Abuse

The Vienna Boys’ Choir are taking allegations of abuse in the past very seriously. The allegations, brought forward by two former choristers, now 33 and 51 years old, were published last week by the Austrian daily “Der Standard”, and the choir is currently investigating the claims.

In an open letter to parents, current choristers, and alumni, choir officials state that “We are aware that there may have been cases of abuse in the past. Any kind of abuse, even if it took place in the past, constitutes an injustice that we must and want to face.”

http://www.wsk.at/jart/prj3/wsk_website/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1268662202129&reserve-mode=active

In the wake of the revelations and people coming forward with stories of systematic sadistic abuse, amongst others in the choir of Ratzinger's brother, it is now the turn of the world famous Vienna Boy's Choir. Beatings and sexual abuse of little boys.

It is not a Catholic institution...

Banquo's Ghost

03-30-2010, 08:55

And where does that leave us? Priests still putting thier hands down kids pants and denial from the head huncho, in the meantime this weekend you will see them people will file in. Listen to the surmons, give over thier change, cross themselves and expect salvation. We should have paddy wagons stationed outside and bring these people to jail, because all that cash given over? yeah thats covering legal fee', housing and meals for people who commited crimes against children.

One assumes that your commitment to collective punishment would also apply to those whose tax dollars are used for acts of murder, torture and rape? The perpetrators may be a tiny minority, but the punishment belongs to all contributors, correct?

(I'm aware that you're being provocative for effect, but yours is a position that I have heard quite often, and I'm intrigued to discover where it ends).

The Wizard

04-02-2010, 22:26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8601084.stm

Pope Benedict's personal preacher has compared criticism of the pontiff and Church over child abuse to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.

The Rev Raniero Cantalamessa was speaking at Good Friday prayers in St Peter's Basilica, attended by the Pope.

In his sermon, he quoted a Jewish friend as saying the accusations reminded him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism".

It just keeps getting better and better. Still not doing anything of substance about the crimes it's committed, the Vatican has now turned to abusing the Holocaust in a misguided attempt to silence critics. It's a tragicomedy, really.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 01:08

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8601084.stm

It just keeps getting better and better. Still not doing anything of substance about the crimes it's committed, the Vatican has now turned to abusing the Holocaust in a misguided attempt to silence critics. It's a tragicomedy, really.

Yeah, except I see his point. These Scandals are fed by the media because of prejudice, rather than merit. In this there may well be a parralel between anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish agitation. Criticism of Israel similarly tends towards criticism of Jews in general.

tibilicus

04-03-2010, 01:39

Yeah, except I see his point. These Scandals are fed by the media because of prejudice, rather than merit. In this there may well be a parralel between anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish agitation. Criticism of Israel similarly tends towards criticism of Jews in general.

Actually they're fed by the media because controversy sells. Either way, the Vatican deserves everything it's getting right now.

Not only has it showed a great deal of arrogance and ignorance in trying to defend the Popes role in this by resorting to lawsuits instead of acknowledging its failings, but the Pope himself has also issued thinly veiled statements which suggest he refuses to acknowledge his own personal role in this disgusting string of events and also that he has no remorse for his actions and the part he played in failing to react correctly to certain US priests. He also appears to have no regret for his current actions in trying to wish this crisis away. If you ask me the Irish and other victims deserve much more than a scripted apology which had no heart in it what so ever. The Pope can't possibly be that sorry about the abuse as he knew it was happening, he's just sorry we all found out the way we did.

He's meant to be the leader of the Church, well why isn't he acting like one? I'm not anti-Catholic or anti-papist, the majority of Catholics are good people, and because of this I feel they deserve better or at least some transparency from the Vatican. I do hope proposed German investigations into abuse do go ahead and the Pope doesn't hide behind the fledgling excuse that he's immune because he's a head of state.

Tellos Athenaios

04-03-2010, 03:05

Fragony

04-03-2010, 11:30

Banquo's Ghost

04-03-2010, 12:02

It's just absurd how they try to play innocence besieged. Trying to put the effects of antisemitism on the same level as filthy pedophiles who can't control their sick need for boy-pussy, especially since the catholic church have been prosecuting jews for centuries. Someone is really overestimating their moral authority. I hope this will absolutely wreck the catholic church, one down.

I agree about the response and tactics. However, the Roman Catholic church has also done some great good, and the vast majority of her members and priests are very decent people. Loathe as I am to see religious institutions in any positions of political power, I would not wish it to be wrecked.

This has to be an opportunity for a wholesale reformation of the Church wherein she drops the siege mentality adopted since the last Reformation. The removal of celibacy is the first step down this road, followed by a commitment to teaching rather than ordering by authority. Much as is being discussed in another thread about Islam, it's time for the Church to set an example for modern times and move away from mediaevalism.

The only way this will happen without the Church self-destructing is for a Holy Father with the intellectual honesty and reforming ability of a John XXIII and the political nouse and charisma of John Paul II to be elected, and for that man to be young and liberal of mind - probably only to be found among the bishops. Since most of these men have been systematically hounded out by JP2 and Ratzinger, it's a forlorn hope. But since Catholics believe the pope is selected by God, it must be possible. (Anyone who is interested in an exploration of an 'accidental' election of an outsider might enjoy the novel "Pope Patrick" by Peter de Rosa, a one-time star of the Church hounded from the priesthood in the seventies).

If God chose Ratzinger, it must have been after a day off and suffering from a legendary hangover. Maybe He delegated once too often in the rush to get to another skee ball match. It's a monarchy, so one can't really expect a popular uprising, but I know a lot of Catholics (heck, I employ a priest) and almost all of them are in despair at the feeble, nay, amoral leadership emerging on this issue (and many others). The millions of Faithful deserve so much better.

Fragony

04-03-2010, 12:24

I agree about the response and tactics. However, the Roman Catholic church has also done some great good, and the vast majority of her members and priests are very decent people. Loathe as I am to see religious institutions in any positions of political power, I would not wish it to be wrecked.

I don't care about a minority when the majority choses silence. All they are sorry, or even angry about is that it came out it seems. No mea culpa is big enough after all the filth that came out and they aren't even trying.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 13:13

Actually they're fed by the media because controversy sells. Either way, the Vatican deserves everything it's getting right now.

Do the Roman Catholics however, look at Odin's or Fragony's comments, "weeeee, this will kill the Roman Church."

Not only has it showed a great deal of arrogance and ignorance in trying to defend the Popes role in this by resorting to lawsuits instead of acknowledging its failings, but the Pope himself has also issued thinly veiled statements which suggest he refuses to acknowledge his own personal role in this disgusting string of events and also that he has no remorse for his actions and the part he played in failing to react correctly to certain US priests. He also appears to have no regret for his current actions in trying to wish this crisis away. If you ask me the Irish and other victims deserve much more than a scripted apology which had no heart in it what so ever. The Pope can't possibly be that sorry about the abuse as he knew it was happening, he's just sorry we all found out the way we did.

I don't know how the Pope feels. If he follows the historical pattern then he probably feels dreadful, and yet does only what he thinks in good for the Church. the problem is that he cannot see that what is good for the Church now is a scourging of the Clergy by the Vatican which involves justice meted out by the Curia and the defrocking of any and all guilty priests and Bishops.

He's meant to be the leader of the Church, well why isn't he acting like one? I'm not anti-Catholic or anti-papist, the majority of Catholics are good people, and because of this I feel they deserve better or at least some transparency from the Vatican. I do hope proposed German investigations into abuse do go ahead and the Pope doesn't hide behind the fledgling excuse that he's immune because he's a head of state.

Attacking the Pope only makes him more powerful, not less. This has always been the case.

I agree about the response and tactics. However, the Roman Catholic church has also done some great good, and the vast majority of her members and priests are very decent people. Loathe as I am to see religious institutions in any positions of political power, I would not wish it to be wrecked.

This has to be an opportunity for a wholesale reformation of the Church wherein she drops the siege mentality adopted since the last Reformation. The removal of celibacy is the first step down this road, followed by a commitment to teaching rather than ordering by authority. Much as is being discussed in another thread about Islam, it's time for the Church to set an example for modern times and move away from mediaevalism.

The only way this will happen without the Church self-destructing is for a Holy Father with the intellectual honesty and reforming ability of a John XXIII and the political nouse and charisma of John Paul II to be elected, and for that man to be young and liberal of mind - probably only to be found among the bishops. Since most of these men have been systematically hounded out by JP2 and Ratzinger, it's a forlorn hope. But since Catholics believe the pope is selected by God, it must be possible. (Anyone who is interested in an exploration of an 'accidental' election of an outsider might enjoy the novel "Pope Patrick" by Peter de Rosa, a one-time star of the Church hounded from the priesthood in the seventies).

If God chose Ratzinger, it must have been after a day off and suffering from a legendary hangover. Maybe He delegated once too often in the rush to get to another skee ball match. It's a monarchy, so one can't really expect a popular uprising, but I know a lot of Catholics (heck, I employ a priest) and almost all of them are in despair at the feeble, nay, amoral leadership emerging on this issue (and many others). The millions of Faithful deserve so much better.

I think schism is the only solution, two Popes excomunicating each other. Last time that triggered a General Council that deposed both. The celibacy issue in minor. The real problem is the role of the Pope as absolute ruler.

Fragony

04-03-2010, 13:25

Do the Roman Catholics however, look at Odin's or Fragony's comments, "weeeee, this will kill the Roman Church."

It isn't exactly a secret that I am not very fond of religion, I will happily celebrate any decline of it. For whatever reason, as long as it declines. So I am naturally pleased with recent developments I hope they will continue getting it all wrong when communicating their position, crumble.

Banquo's Ghost

04-03-2010, 14:20

The celibacy issue in minor. The real problem is the role of the Pope as absolute ruler.

I hesitate to debate such a learned theologian, but I don't think it is. Religions, by their very nature, demand an authority. Whether that be invested in a person (Catholic view) or a book (Protestant view) religions can only exist through an appeal to the rule of a spiritual authority or they become the Church of England. :wink:

I would like to see that personal authority exercised as a teacher (far more Christlike) rather than a mediaeval king.

In my opinion, celibacy is the very root and branch of the current problem and the related one of having increasingly fewer priests of any calibre. It is almost impossible to find men who will embrace the entirely celibate life after living a little, and utterly useless to have inexperienced virgins join the priesthood and then try to advise convincingly on relationship matters. Or (as has been theorised earlier) deal positively with their sexuality and the forced denial of a fundamental of humanity without recourse to lying, guilt or perversion. The commitment to celibacy is stupid, destructive and without any sacred foundation.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 15:22

I hesitate to debate such a learned theologian, but I don't think it is. Religions, by their very nature, demand an authority. Whether that be invested in a person (Catholic view) or a book (Protestant view) religions can only exist through an appeal to the rule of a spiritual authority or they become the Church of England. :wink:

Well, I think the main problem the Church of England has in its relatives, particularly its American ones.* As to there being any "learned theologians", I am not one and please do not mistake me for such. I find it deeply embarressing.

I do wish to point up the political difference between the Church of England and it's Mother Church. The CofE is ruled by Council, every year the Bishops, priests and Laity gather for the General Synod. Every ten years the Communion gathers for what is in fact a General Council, but which is politically dubbed, "The Lambeth Conference". Despite claims (made by especially Catholics) the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a ruler, a connection to Christ, or even one who has authority throughout the Communion.

The Communion is a group of National Churches, must like the early Catholic Church before it became so Romano-centric.

I would like to see that personal authority exercised as a teacher (far more Christlike) rather than a mediaeval king.

I personally consider that the problem is the intrinsic nature of the Pope's authority. Namely, that he calims to be God's direct representative, and (more recently) that he claims infallability on matters of The Faith. The current system naturally favours tyranny at the top, and this filters down to the lower levels. I feel this is why the Church is sometimes unresponsive and unsympathetic.

In my opinion, celibacy is the very root and branch of the current problem and the related one of having increasingly fewer priests of any calibre. It is almost impossible to find men who will embrace the entirely celibate life after living a little, and utterly useless to have inexperienced virgins join the priesthood and then try to advise convincingly on relationship matters. Or (as has been theorised earlier) deal positively with their sexuality and the forced denial of a fundamental of humanity without recourse to lying, guilt or perversion. The commitment to celibacy is stupid, destructive and without any sacred foundation.

I agree that celibacy has played it's part in the current abuse, but the real problem is the way it has been covered up, and this is an issue of authority.

For me, the solution to the problems in the Roman Church are the same as the solution to the continuing, and ever increasing, schism within the wider Church. It began with Constantinople, then Bohemia, then the German Principalities, then England, Scandanavia, and most recently Pious X. Not that I support Pious X, but the fact is that every fracture in the Church has become decisive only once the Pope took the step of excomunicating whole Episcopates and then Nations. The solution lies in the College of Bishops, where the National Churches are headed by the Primates and Patriarchs, over the the Archbishops, and where the Patriarch of Rome is ultimately One among Many, even if he is also First.

The current role of the Papacy, the overlarge Papal Curia and the Cardinals, appointed by the Pope, are the problem. If we returned to a system where Bishops were properly elected by their own clergy (also a problem in England, while the institution of an extrme form of the system in America has, admittedly, caused most of the current issues there) then the central power of the Papacy would be appropriately reduced to that of head of the Italian Church.

Louis VI the Fat

04-03-2010, 15:27

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 16:00

If it were up to me, the church would be forbidden from practising for the foreseeable future.

We managed to restrict the church of scientology and place heavy fines on them too, for exploiting the weak.

As for Ratzinger. His church was under pressure from the abuse scandals in the US earlier this decade. Ratzinger at this time was the head of the Inquisition (yes, it still exists), and charged with trying to keep a lid on the scandal. For his efforts he was elected to the throne. The church is not taken by surprise by the revelations in Europe - it was fully prepared and decided to fight tooth and nail for its right to run pederast rape camps by raising this bloodhound to the papacy.

This is a massive over-simplification. For staters, the Congregation today is not the Inquisition, and in any case the department of the Papal curia is a Court, not an executive arm which tortured people. You are reffering to the Inquisitors themselves, who could be violent, cruel and brutal, but were generally not even Papal appointees.

The Roman Catholic Church could be a lot better than it is in many ways, but to compare it to Scientology is absurd. For starters, the Roman Church is THE largest charity in the world, and it does NOT "run pederast rape camps".

As far as Ratzinger goes, it's not like they had any other serious candidates, is it?

Fragony

04-03-2010, 16:12

Louis VI the Fat

04-04-2010, 01:13

The Roman Catholic Church could be a lot better than it is in many waysThe church' provocation of going all Mel Gibson on good Friday is not lost on me.

It is borderline fascism, of the plain, unadulterated, continental kind.

You know what the problem is with the church? It can think in decades, even centuries. After any scandal, it can lay low for a few decades, wait for everybody involved to die, most notably its critics, then resume business as usual as if nothing ever happened.
I've got a long memory too, and understand the church well enough to get the meaning of this statement on the day Christian persecution began with the Jews murdering their Christ.

Centurion1

04-04-2010, 04:02

The church' provocation of going all Mel Gibson on good Friday is not lost on me.

It is borderline fascism, of the plain, unadulterated, continental kind.

You know what the problem is with the church? It can think in decades, even centuries. After any scandal, it can lay low for a few decades, wait for everybody involved to die, most notably its critics, then resume business as usual as if nothing ever happened.
I've got a long memory too, and understand the church well enough to get the meaning of this statement on the day Christian persecution began with the Jews murdering their Christ.

*fart*

Happy Easter Everyone!!!!!!!!!

Seamus Fermanagh

04-04-2010, 05:42

Done with this.

I will not blot out what has been said -- some of the points made (notably Banquo's) are well reasoned arguments.

I will not brook more, at least not for a while.

Thanks for all who contributed thoughtfully and not vitriolically.

Thread is now re-opened following moderator discussion. All posters all called on to remember that religion often forms a component of someone's identity and is not just an "opinion." Please be respectful as you post criticisms of such.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-14-2010, 15:04

Apparently, patrons were unaware that this thread had been re-opened. After discussion, the moderators have agreed that the topic is not out-of-bounds, nor is criticism of the Church. We only ask that due attention to other's sensitivies is paid. Thanks.

Lemur

04-14-2010, 15:55

This is less about the Catholic Church and more about the growing ubiquity of internet culture, but I was astonished to read that the Pope's billboards in Malta were spray-painted with Pedobear (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100413/local/pedobear-on-papal-billboards-becomes-online-sensation).

Pedobear. In Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta). Who knew?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/pedobear-pope-billboard-in-malta-86.jpg

Ronin

04-14-2010, 18:31

'not clear why'...

ohhhh RLY? :P

coming to think of it....the Emperor is coming to Portugal next month.....uhhhhh

*goes off to look for billboards and to buy black ink*

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2010, 00:27

Allegations of direct involvement of Ratzinger in the transfer of a pedophile priest in Bavaria surfaced last month. The Vatican denied, claiming not Ratzinger himself, but his aides were responsible:

The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/peter_hullermann/index.html?inline=nyt-per), has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org), was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.

Last week, however, a memo (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?scp=16&sq=benedict&st=cse) emerged which shows Ratzinger indeed was personally involved in the transfer of a pedophile priest:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

Nope (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27pope.html?scp=5&sq=pope%20memo&st=cse), says the pope:

The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising has said that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, had approved a decision to transfer the troubled priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/peter_hullermann/index.html?inline=nyt-per), into his diocese for therapy to overcome pedophilia. But the diocese said that Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the time, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber, took full responsibility for the decision to reassign the priest to pastoral duties a few days after his therapy began.
Father Hullermann went on to molest boys in another parish and was later convicted of sexual abuse of children.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

However much the Vatican and the archdiocese of Munich and Freising may deny direct responsibility by Ratzinger for transferring a raping priest instead of reporting him to the authorities, another case (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?scp=7&sq=pope%20memo&st=cse) emerged a few days ago in the US. This time, there was no more denying possible of his direct involvement:

The priest, convicted of tying up and abusing two young boys in a California church rectory, wanted to leave the ministry.

But in 1985, four years after the priest and his bishop first asked that he be defrocked, the future Pope Benedict XVI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then a top Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org) official, signed a letter saying that the case needed more time and that “the good of the Universal Church” had to be considered in the final decision, according to church documents released through lawsuits.

https://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5793/10popecndarticlelarge.jpg

https://img44.imageshack.us/content_round.php?page=done&l=img44/5793/10popecndarticlelarge.jpg

Ratzinger was the head of the inquisition from 1978 to 2005. He never hesitated to clamp down harshly and promptly on all those within the church who strayed from its path. Persecution of straying clerics was Ratzingers profession for twenty-five years. Except, apparantly, when a priest ties up two boys of eleven and thirteen to rape them. This priest he did not assume to act counter to the moral teachings of the church. Certainly not enough to defrock him.

It is this man, Ratzinger, with this history, who was elected to the papacy. After the scandal had already broken in the US, and was sure to emerge in Europe, sooner rather than later. I wonder, was Ratzinger specifically chosen because he had extensive experience with dealing with pederasm alllegations? Was Ratzinger picked precisely because the Vatican decided a policy of denial and cover-up would be the right path to take in the coming storm? Of all of the electable cardinals, Ratzinger was the man who had been in charge of dealing with pederast priests for over two decades.

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2010, 01:33

I don't mean to pile on, but I found this (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vatican+under+fire+linking+gays+pedophilia/2905297/story.html) particularly egregious. In discussing the molestation of little girls, the Vatican's 2nd in command took the opportunity to blame it all on the gays. Pathetic. :shame:

aimlesswanderer

04-15-2010, 06:18

Reenk Roink

04-15-2010, 06:26

Yes, that is certainly an interesting claim. Perhaps the "studies" he refers to were done to the same rigorous standard as those which "conclusively proved" that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth in years past. Quality stuff.

As opposed to the earth revolving around the sun? The Geocentric model was by far the best model in explanatory power and scope, even after the Heliocentric model was just presented. The only reason people took to that model was because the calculations were easier (so "simplicio" type folks were pleased) and some new conceptions of god and stuff.

Besides, with today's GR, there's nothing more to be said about heliocentrism over geocentrism. You want the geocentric model, get some coordinates and make it work! :2thumbsup:

But then again, what do you expect from people who overly bash the church on the pedophilia charges... :rolleyes:

Banquo's Ghost

04-15-2010, 06:51

You want the geocentric model, get some coordinates and make it work! :2thumbsup:

That would be like, say, changing the points on the moral compass, right? :inquisitive:

Reenk Roink

04-15-2010, 07:04

That would be like, say, changing the points on the moral compass, right? :inquisitive:

What? :huh:

Banquo's Ghost

04-15-2010, 07:12

What? :huh:

It was a poor joke, relating your quip about adapting the facts to support the geocentric model to the ability of the Roman hierarchy to adapt their moral compass to get them out of responsibility for the appalling abuse of children.

Reenk Roink

04-15-2010, 07:25

It was a poor joke, relating your quip about adapting the facts to support the geocentric model to the ability of the Roman hierarchy to adapt their moral compass to get them out of responsibility for the appalling abuse of children.

What is interesting, my dear Banquo, is that when one is going to attempt to draw an analogy to the Church's previous support of the geocentric framework in some kind of negative (to these people, negative generally means "anti-science/anti-'rational'"), they would probably do better to find a better example, as it was NOT Gellybellied Galileo and rather the geocentrists (and the Church backing them) who at the time had the better empirical footing, and were far less reliant on odd conjectures, and did not need to bother with vagueness and some complicated rhetorical material to effectively argue for their position.

Now some may say that the later success of the heliocentric model vindicates simple GallyooooOOOOO00000, but this is not really so (anymore so than the success of geocentrism vindicates it and its supporters), as you and I both know that it is basically nonsensical to talk about an "objective" sun centered solar system (heck the center of mass is affected enough by Jupiter to not make this so) within the current dominant paradigm of General Relativity.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-15-2010, 14:02

What is interesting, my dear Banquo, is that when one is going to attempt to draw an analogy to the Church's previous support of the geocentric framework in some kind of negative (to these people, negative generally means "anti-science/anti-'rational'"), they would probably do better to find a better example, as it was NOT Gellybellied Galileo and rather the geocentrists (and the Church backing them) who at the time had the better empirical footing, and were far less reliant on odd conjectures, and did not need to bother with vagueness and some complicated rhetorical material to effectively argue for their position.

Now some may say that the later success of the heliocentric model vindicates simple GallyooooOOOOO00000, but this is not really so (anymore so than the success of geocentrism vindicates it and its supporters), as you and I both know that it is basically nonsensical to talk about an "objective" sun centered solar system (heck the center of mass is affected enough by Jupiter to not make this so) within the current dominant paradigm of General Relativity.

Wanderer's critique seems to fall into the more of less standard category of "The Church will always quash anything that stands in the way of their continued power and dominance, even when it's the truth." I suppose that's related to this scandal in the general sense of "abuse of power" issues. At any event, those exploring the issue will note that The Church wasn't quite so unreceptive to heliocentrism as the short version makes things out to be.

As to Jovian effects, I have often wondered exactly how close we came -- cosmically -- to being part of a tight binary system (which would likely have caused us not to be at all.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

04-15-2010, 16:41

Guess the Catholic Church still keeps it view that it can do whatever it wants without being held accountable.

rory_20_uk

04-15-2010, 16:43

Latest thing is Pope urges faithful to do penance (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7098470.ece).

You follow MY orders... But when anything goes wrong YOU are to blame...

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

04-15-2010, 16:46

"This is a scientific absurdity. The World Health Organization calls homosexuality a variation of human behaviour. It is paedopholia that is a pathology, a crime, not homosexuality," said Franco Grillini, a former parliamentarian who was at the vanguard of Italy's gay rights movement.:

I don't understand this distinction between a "variation of human behaviour" and a "pathology", when the latter is said to be a "A departure or deviation from a normal condition" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pathology). Or do peadophiles choose to be paedophiles? How then is 'curing' a paedophile different from 'curing' a gay person?

The main difference, surely, is that the act of paedophelia cannot be consensual? These other distinctions just seem to be the usual liberal pc nonsense.

drone

04-15-2010, 16:53

You follow MY orders... But when anything goes wrong YOU are to blame...

Well, he is the Vicar of Christ, infallible in all spiritual matters. So it's obviously the flock's fault. ~;)

Banquo's Ghost

04-15-2010, 16:55

rory_20_uk

04-15-2010, 16:55

It's only not consensual because that's the way the laws are defined - I'm talking almost exclusively about post pubescent teenagers here. So it's in fact legal semantics.

Girls do not suddenly change beyond all recognition on their 18th birthday. my first serious girlfriend was 17. I was slightly older as I'd just started Uni. She was on campus and I was horrified to find out she was 17 (she was visiting a friend for the week, I thought she was in the same year as her friend). And believe it or not, she chased me (OK, so maybe she was mad...) I don't consider myself a paedophile - I was attracted to her due to her secondary sexual characteristics far more than her friend who although 2 years older wasn't as physically appealing. Some can be extremely physically (less often mentally) mature by the early teens. Others still look androgynous into their 20's.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-15-2010, 17:51

It frightens me that the Pope has no apparent understanding of the sacrament of penance. To wit, one must first sincerely admit your sins to God.

It's quite amazing that he is the one blaming ordinary Catholics for the wickedness of certain priests and their enablers. So far, it appears to be entirely the fault of the gays, the Jews, the media and now the general laity. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Well, to be fair, the church requires you to admit your sins before God as embodied sacramentally by your confessor -- it does not normally ask for a public admission (though I DO think such would be the wisest course at this juncture). Nor did the Holy Father exempt himself from the penance he suggested from the Church as a whole, so this is not an "I'm infallible -- you're to blame" statement. There is an element of collective responsibility among all Catholics in that the shepherds of our church have, in far too many instances, betrayed their flocks. I know I feel a sense of shame over it, and the sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to speak to such things, not simply to personal foibles. ALL such thoughts, feelings, etc. are part of our relationship with God.

It still galls me that church leaders -- and a Bishop is responsible for his Diocese regardless of who has been deputed to handle the details/make recommendations as to policy -- allowed these pedophiles to return to pastoral work. If the goal was to protect the reputation of the Church while allowing them the chance for personal redemption, well, that's what cloistered monasticism is for. Withdraw from the sins of the world to focus exclusively on prayer and contemplation. Returning potential child predators to pastoral care....even after the psych folk confirmed that recidivism is nearly 100% despite treatment....I am ashamed.

Banquo's Ghost

04-15-2010, 18:04

Well, to be fair, the church requires you to admit your sins before God as embodied sacramentally by your confessor -- it does not normally ask for a public admission (though I DO think such would be the wisest course at this juncture). Nor did the Holy Father exempt himself from the penance he suggested from the Church as a whole, so this is not an "I'm infallible -- you're to blame" statement. There is an element of collective responsibility among all Catholics in that the shepherds of our church have, in far too many instances, betrayed their flocks. I know I feel a sense of shame over it, and the sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to speak to such things, not simply to personal foibles. ALL such thoughts, feelings, etc. are part of our relationship with God.

It still galls me that church leaders -- and a Bishop is responsible for his Diocese regardless of who has been deputed to handle the details/make recommendations as to policy -- allowed these pedophiles to return to pastoral work. If the goal was to protect the reputation of the Church while allowing them the chance for personal redemption, well, that's what cloistered monasticism is for. Withdraw from the sins of the world to focus exclusively on prayer and contemplation. Returning potential child predators to pastoral care....even after the psych folk confirmed that recidivism is nearly 100% despite treatment....I am ashamed.

Fair point on the public admission, but if I recall, one is also supposed to show remorse through never committing the sin again - and by inference, taking steps to ensure that. True remorse for a sin that involves other people would normally involve admission of guilt and wrong to that person, and the offer to make things good.

I simply don't see that you have anything to be ashamed about. I don't buy collective responsibility. Why should the Pope make you feel a sense of shame for what he and his acolytes have done? Ordinary Catholics and most priests are not molestors - I find it despicable that Ratzinger has made a good man like yourself feel like they have some part of the burden to share.

And personal redemption for paedophiles in our society takes place in jail, not a cloister. The victims deserve to see justice done.

Reenk Roink

04-15-2010, 18:14

And personal redemption for paedophiles in our society takes place in jail, not a cloister. The victims deserve to see justice done.

Unless the alleged pedophiles are convicted, the cloister is the best idea for them.

PanzerJaeger

04-15-2010, 18:47

I don't understand this distinction between a "variation of human behaviour" and a "pathology", when the latter is said to be a "A departure or deviation from a normal condition" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pathology). Or do peadophiles choose to be paedophiles? How then is 'curing' a paedophile different from 'curing' a gay person?

The main difference, surely, is that the act of paedophelia cannot be consensual? These other distinctions just seem to be the usual liberal pc nonsense.

You answered your own question. Pedophilia is a nonconsensual crime against children while homosexuality is a consensual preference that damages no one, and the attempts to link the two are not only spurious, but represent a concerted effort to denigrate homosexuals. I think that is what the above referenced Italian was trying to say.

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2010, 19:36

The church' provocation of going all Mel Gibson on good Friday is not lost on me.

It is borderline fascism, of the plain, unadulterated, continental kind.

I've got a long memory too, and understand the church well enough to get the meaning of this statement on the day Christian persecution began with the Jews murdering their Christ.Call me mad. Me, I say I understand Italian clergy and good old-fashioned continental antisemitism well enough when I see it. Another one blames the murderers of Christ:

A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.

The comments, which have been denied by the bishop, follow a series of statements from Catholic churchmen alleging the existence of plots to weaken the church and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pope-benedict-xvi).
Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex (http://www.pontifex.roma.it/), Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."
The interview was spotted on Friday by the American Jewish Committee, which said Babini was using "slanderous stereotypes, which sadly evoke the worst Christian and Nazi propaganda prior to world war two".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/catholic-bishop-blames-jews

Well, that's gays, the media, petty gossip and the Jews then. Plus the earlier 'we didn't do it, and besides, everybody else does it too'. One wonders how they find the time in between beatifying Pius XII, Franco's accomplices, and restoring French Vichy fascists and Holocaust-denying bishops.

That's the problem with the church being based within Italy. The top of the hierarchy is international. Directly below, the church is run by Italians unaccustomed to separation of church and state, full of dinosaur-like ancient reflexes. Welcome to the nineteenth century.

Rhyfelwyr

04-15-2010, 20:28

Seamus Fermanagh

04-15-2010, 21:05

Fair point on the public admission, but if I recall, one is also supposed to show remorse through never committing the sin again - and by inference, taking steps to ensure that. True remorse for a sin that involves other people would normally involve admission of guilt and wrong to that person, and the offer to make things good.

I simply don't see that you have anything to be ashamed about. I don't buy collective responsibility. Why should the Pope make you feel a sense of shame for what he and his acolytes have done? Ordinary Catholics and most priests are not molestors - I find it despicable that Ratzinger has made a good man like yourself feel like they have some part of the burden to share.

And personal redemption for paedophiles in our society takes place in jail, not a cloister. The victims deserve to see justice done.

Part of reconciliation IS supposed to be the effort not to repeat the same sin. Catholicism is well aware that lapses can and do happen, but the effort is supposed to be made. While a public admission is not required for personal sin, I agree with you that a public admission is appropriate on the organizational level. With that admission comes massive financial losses (unless civil suits function differently in Europe from here), but that probably is warranted as part of making amends.

Ratzinger did not make me feel guilt. I feel some sense of guilt that The Church, of which I am normally very proud, didn't do enough to curb or avert this. This sense of guilt is part of expressing sorrow for the harm done to others. I have felt some of this for years -- this scandal is not new to my country.

When I suggested the cloister as an alternative, Banquo, it was not to deny the state a right to prosecute criminals for their actions. Crimes such as these warrant punishment and members of the Church (whatever their intentions) should not have abetted these criminals. Like you, I believe they should face justice as appropriate. My point was that, even if you DO accept that the Church might want to cover things up, it is inconceivable to me that the Church did not remove these individuals from pastoral care. The cloister was one means to do so that was readily available.

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2010, 22:01

I wouldn't go overboard with linking the Catholic Church with the far-right. Despite it's hierarchical nature, Catholicism has taken on a lot of different political associations depending on the political situations it has found itself in. Look at the Jesuits and their liberation theology in South and Central America for example. Or in Scotland, where the working-class nature of Catholic communities has meant they have always been associated with the left and the early Labour movement.It was not me who linked rape camps with the far right. It is bishop Babini who claims this is all but a 'Zionist attack' by those powerful and refined God killers the Jews. This hot on the heals of the antisemitic remarks by the 'pope's priest' on Good Friday, the day God was actually killed.

I repeated the allegation of endemic antisemitism because I interpreted the latter's remarks as such, what with his claim it was his (imaginary?) Jewish friend felt the pain of the church, which is persecuted as the Jews have always been. There was an air about it of 'the Jews, the God killers, get off lightly, we're not even allowed to raise any criticism about them, while we, servants of God, who merely made a few little mistakes, are persecuted on the day our Christ was killed!?'

Lemur

04-17-2010, 15:44

What about the girls? It seems to this lemur that a disproportionate amount of the coverage and outrage is focused on boys who were used by priests. Does this mean that the vast majority of victims were male, or that the reporting is slanted, or that attitudes are different, or what? This is a sincere question.

A quick bit of Googling brings me the following (http://www.newsweek.com/id/236489):

In the case of the priest scandal, boys were the victims of sexual misconduct much more often than girls, by a factor of about four to one, says Margaret Leland Smith of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But what has gotten scant attention is the fact that the female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, including Smith, shows that even though there were many more boy victims than girls overall, the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age. Specifically, between 1950 and 2002, there were 246 girls younger than 8 who were sexually abused by priests (representing 14 percent of all girl victims), compared with 236 boys (3 percent of all boy victims). However, the most likely age of victims—for girls and boys—was between 11 and 14.

Beskar

04-17-2010, 15:51

You follow MY orders... But when anything goes wrong YOU are to blame...

I doubt the Pope tells them to Abuse Children, he probably tells them not to abuse children. Therefore, they are not following his orders, thus, they are to blame.

Tellos Athenaios

04-17-2010, 19:05

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-17-2010, 23:07

An interesting fact that no one has picked up on. The Secretary of State did not link homosexuality and paedophillia, he was far too clever for that. As far as I can tell, assuming the English is accurate, he said two seperate things. He first said that the paedophillia was mostly carried out by homosexuals (statistically true), then he said that the "pathology" (of paedophillia) was present in all stratas of society and genders, which is also true. There is, in fact no linkage of homosexuality and paedophillia, except in the minds of the readers. This, I suspect, would be his defence when questioned, but at the same time homophobic Catholics will rejoince as they see the Cardinal agreeing with them.

Very clever, he's probably a canon Lawyer.

Tellos Athenaios

04-18-2010, 01:18

"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia, but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia."

There is apparently, as Bertone understands it, a relationship between; you guess it:

Celibacy and paedophilia
Celibacy and homosexuality
Homosexuality and paedophilia

He is careful not to specify any quantifiers or even qualifiers. But he does definition suggest option (3).

"This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms," he said. "The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous."

More interesting, which pathology? There are actually two possible cases:

Homosexuality
Paedophilia

And for the record the exact accusation is this:

"This is a scientific absurdity. The World Health Organization calls homosexuality a variation of human behaviour. It is paedopholia that is a pathology, a crime, not homosexuality," said Franco Grillini, a former parliamentarian who was at the vanguard of Italy's gay rights movement.

"Because they have their own problems with the abuse crisis and don't know how to handle it, they are trying to pass their 'cross' from their shoulders on to ours," Grillini told Reuters.

Which is taking issue with having homosexuality called a pathology (the original statement is vague enough you can't really complain about that); and more importantly that homosexuality is brought up at all to sow infamy and deflect from celibacy as possible root cause. A less subtle, more vindictive variant on calling out “non-sequitur”. Note how Grillini does nowhere challenge that either paedophilia is a pathology, or that it occurs more often among homosexuals.

Beskar

04-18-2010, 06:54

Richard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

Edit: What is interesting is the discussions surrounding the issues, not the actual "headline" whch has come under attack from Dawkins himself and others.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-18-2010, 12:01

It's all patently ridiculous, no British judge will issue the warrent, because it would be seen as commenting on the legal status of the Vatican and Papacy. Just because the documents were drawn up under Facism does not make them invalid. The argument that the Vatican's borders are not policed (try getting past the Swiss Guard, it took me a couple of hours) and that the Papacy does not have full diplomatic relations (why do you think the Pope places Cadinals in every country?) are bordering on absurd. the defence is, I supsect, reasonably strong; and even if it weren't the British government will not risk the international fallout, and potential riots (especially in Northern Ireland).

Also, I think "crimes against hummanity" is innapropriate if you are claiming the Vatican is not a State, surely "obstructing Justice" would be nearer the mark.

Lemur

04-18-2010, 14:17

Seamus Fermanagh

04-19-2010, 04:32

Yes it was. I am quite happy he made these comments on his trip to Malta. Hopefully, this will change the response pattern.

PanzerJaeger

04-19-2010, 05:36

Well, this is a step in the right direction, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8628244.stm) isn't it?

Pope Benedict XVI has met alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests in Malta, saying the Church will do all in its power to punish abusers.

The Pope also "expressed his shame and sorrow over what victims and their families have suffered", a Vatican statement said.

Seems like they've finally hired some proper damage control specialists. This episode could have been far less damaging had they been conciliatory from the start.

Reenk Roink

04-19-2010, 17:06

Good on him. The Catholic Church is a beast (meant in a positive way of course), this "damage" will only be a small, small, dent. May God maintain its influence and power for another 1500 years. :bow:

Lemur

04-19-2010, 21:24

A little more detail (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7101213.ece):

Lawrence Grech, 37, who acts as spokesman for the eight, said that the meeting had provided "peace in our hearts".

"I admire the Pope for his courage in meeting us. He was embarrassed by the failings of others. We now look forward to the end of the court case and closure of this chapter," he said. Both Mr Magro and Mr Grech wore crucifixes and carried rosary beads given to them by the Pope. "After 25 years, now I can go back to church," Mr Grech said.

Asked if the Pope had apologised for the abuse, he said: "He did not have to say sorry, because the abuse was not the fault of one person. He should not carry the guilt of others."

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2010, 23:39

Louis VI the Fat

04-20-2010, 02:15

I am happy for the peace of mind of my Catholic friends. The pope's statements and gesture no doubt must come as a relief.

As for me, implacable enemy of Rome, my soul bound for an eternity of torment:
Ten years on since the scandal in America, several years in Ireland, and three months in Europe. In each instance, the church broke only after the pressure became unbearable, because the situation became untenable. Each time refusing to make good on its concilliatory words from the previous round. Actions will have to speak louder than words.

Wow, Uber Pope then, can convert in under an hour.

So I suppose these people don't think he's a facist.The pope has been responsible for the handling of these cases for thirty years. 'After 25 years, now I can go back to church' - the whole of these twenty-five years have been the responsibility of Ratzinger. Maybe they do not think Ratzinger a fascist, but I would think a lot of a things about him.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 16:23

IThe pope has been responsible for the handling of these cases for thirty years. 'After 25 years, now I can go back to church' - the whole of these twenty-five years have been the responsibility of Ratzinger. Maybe they do not think Ratzinger a fascist, but I would think a lot of a things about him.

Um, actually Ratzinger was under orders from the last Pope; try blaming it on John Paul instead. Benedict is in a tricky spot now, because he can't obviously change the policy of his "infallable" predecessor.

the problem is in the political-theology, not so much the man (at least not necessarily).

HoreTore

04-20-2010, 16:43

Um, actually Ratzinger was under orders from the last Pope; try blaming it on John Paul instead. Benedict is in a tricky spot now, because he can't obviously change the policy of his "infallable" predecessor.

the problem is in the political-theology, not so much the man (at least not necessarily).

If he disagreed with the last Pope, why didn't he take his fancy hat and leave?

Lemur

04-20-2010, 16:45

Benedict is in a tricky spot now, because he can't obviously change the policy of his "infallable" predecessor.
Point of order: The pope is only "infalliable" when speaking ex cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). Note that since the doctrine of infalliability has been in place, it has only been invoked once. From the wiki:

[T]his power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

So if the pope declares that his coffee is too hot and needs more sugar, he is not infalliable, even from the most literalist catholic perspective. He's only infalliable when speaking on matters of faith, and only when invoking ex cathedra. Which has happened once.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 23:33

Kadagar_AV

04-21-2010, 02:31

so, let us put this in context...

Some guy who believes in a very old book is a bit too touchy with young people, and his leaders who also are like "oh this book is so cool" supports him and tries to shut it down, only in the modern age you can't really.

Did I summarize it correctly, or did I miss something?

Seamus Fermanagh

04-21-2010, 04:51

Point of order: The pope is only "infalliable" when speaking ex cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). Note that since the doctrine of infalliability has been in place, it has only been invoked once. From the wiki:

[T]his power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

So if the pope declares that his coffee is too hot and needs more sugar, he is not infalliable, even from the most literalist catholic perspective. He's only infalliable when speaking on matters of faith, and only when invoking ex cathedra. Which has happened once.

Beat me to it. Well done, Lemur, and correct in all points.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-21-2010, 12:05

If he disagreed with the last Pope, why didn't he take his fancy hat and leave?

Maybe because he knew he was going to be the next Pope, or possibly because he's a Roman Catholic, and that means, for him, the Pope is the only show in town.

Take your pick.

Point of order: The pope is only "infalliable" when speaking ex cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra). Note that since the doctrine of infalliability has been in place, it has only been invoked once. From the wiki:

[T]his power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.
So if the pope declares that his coffee is too hot and needs more sugar, he is not infalliable, even from the most literalist catholic perspective. He's only infalliable when speaking on matters of faith, and only when invoking ex cathedra. Which has happened once.

Technically true, but the reality is that ex cathedra is merely the formalisation of the Pope exercising absolute authority. As far back as the 13th Century William Ockham was accused of heresy for using his razor to demonstrate the "rightness" of transubstatiation. Why di this get him in trouble? Not because he dissagreed with Catholic doctrine, but because he used philosophy and science to "prove" it rather than accepting the Pope's pronouncement as a matter of Faith.

So the problem remains.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 12:51

this "damage" will only be a small, small, dent.One small dent for a church, one huge trauma for tens of thousands of victims.

It hurts, for an eleven year old boy, when an adult man penetrates him. It is painful, traumatic. Being tied up intensifies the feeling of panic, of powerlessness. It doesn't leave a small dent. It causes physical damage, there is lots of blood involved during the rape, a little boy will excrete blood for days. The anus of a small boy is not fit to receive a grown man. It bleeds. There are wounds forming during the rape, luckily, the blood functions as a lubricant. As does the excrement, which the boy can not hold in anymore. The priest can penetrate faster and deeper because of the mixture of blood and excrement. Unluckily, the wounds of the boy are hurting more and more during the process, become excruciatingly painful.
When it is over, the boy is ashamed, he will hide his underwear from his mother, try to wash the stains. The boy is scared - did the man cause damage with his painful stick in his belly? But he can't talk about his fear with his parents. The parents told the boy the priest is a good man, a man of god, the words of the priest are right and just, and the little boy must take heed of them. And the priest implored the boy not to speak with anybody about it...
The boy is ashamed, ashamed that he did something terrible wrong. His shame causes secrecy, a secrecy that makes him the unwilling accomplice of the molester, which he won't understand until the child is an adult himself. He is angry, as an adult, but the pope himself has written in a letter that the good of the church must take preference over his anger and suffering.

It hurted that the perpetrator was regarded a man of morality in his community. Because the molester represents morality, the silence continues. The impressionable young mind of the child is easily overpowered. He'll believe in Santa Claus, never mind when the big people tell him there is a man with a beard up in the clouds reading his thoughts. Doubt and guilt takes hold of the little child's mind, he is scared of his own thoughts: 'Surely Jesus will reject me when I go against this man of god? Will I burn in hell if I cry? If I cry of pain when that big adult penis is forced in my far too small anus? Far too large to fit, it hurts, it bleeds. But the statue of Jesus above my head shows a man suffering, maybe I should suffer this too'.

It hurts when the perpetrator is protected for decades. When, if the boy finally reaches adulthood and has the assertiveness to speak out, that nothing is done. That the deranged child molester can go about his filthy business unhindred. That the man personally responsible for protecting the torturer is elected pope, head of the institution. It hurts that the masses spit on the victim, and worship the child molester and his protector. That once elected as pope, he can go on for another five years without anything meaningful being done.

But I am happy that after thirty years Ratzinger has deemed some victims worthy of attention.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 12:54

Um, actually Ratzinger was under orders from the last Pope; try blaming it on John Paul instead.Why should I bother the dead?

In Ratzinger's 24 years as prefect of the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' (that is, head of the Inquisition), alll cases of grave sexual offences by clerics anywhere in the world had to be reported to Ratzinger. Under strictest secrecy (secretum pontificum!), to his personal curial office, which was exclusively responsible for dealing with them. It is Ratzinger himself, in a letter about sexual crimes send to all the bishops in 2001, that he warned the bishops, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment by his Inquisition, to observe 'papal secrecy' in such cases.

That has been Ratzinger's job. To protect the integrity of the morality of the church.

This morality of the church Ratzinger understood to mean to protect the child molesters, and not the children.

His actions speak for themselves. Plenty within the church have felt the whip by this most conservative man, whenever they strayed from the church's moral teaching's. However, when Ratzinger read the file of a priest who ties up and rapes little boys as young as eleven, this morality for Ratzinger consisted not of using any of his powers to stop this man from doing so, but in threatening those who sought to stop the priest.

Then the abuse scandal broke in America, and the church came under pressure. Because of this pressure, the church thought the experience of Ratzinger with supressing the cases made him the right man for the job of pope.

Benedict is in a tricky spot now, because he can't obviously change the policy of his "infallable" predecessor.

the problem is in the political-theology, not so much the man (at least not necessarily).The political-theological policy of the church is no relevance. There is legal policy concerning proper conduct. The church merely has to abide with that.

If the church thinks itself incapable or unwilling to abide, than it will have to be closed. At least forbidden from practising, or from contact with minors. Nightclubs that refuse to cooperate in tackling endemic substance abuse are closed too, with disregard for the non-drugs dealing, law-abiding members.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Point of order: The pope is [...] only infalliable when speaking on matters of faith, and only when invoking ex cathedra.
Beat me to it. Don't nobody think I don't know my Rome :beam:

I myself may be wrong. Come to think of it, this happens quite a lot. France as a whole, when speaking ex cathedra in matters pertaining to politics, art or philosophy, is infallible.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-21-2010, 14:05

Why should I bother the dead?

In Ratzinger's 24 years as prefect of the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' (that is, head of the Inquisition), alll cases of grave sexual offences by clerics anywhere in the world had to be reported to Ratzinger. Under strictest secrecy (secretum pontificum!), to his personal curial office, which was exclusively responsible for dealing with them. It is Ratzinger himself, in a letter about sexual crimes send to all the bishops in 2001, that he warned the bishops, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment by his Inquisition, to observe 'papal secrecy' in such cases.

That has been Ratzinger's job. To protect the integrity of the morality of the church.

.... On the orders of the Pope. This is John Paul II's mess, he authorised the secrecy. You're blaming the Monkey because the Organ Grinder taught him to steal. Benedict may be responsible now, but he was not then. That's how the Roman Catholic Church works, which (I believe) is the real problem. Everything is controlled by the Papal Curia, and this system entrenches a remoteness into the Church hierarchy.

This morality of the church Ratzinger understood to mean to protect the child molesters, and not the children.

Again, this would have been a matter of Papal policy, not of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's preference.

His actions speak for themselves. Plenty within the church have felt the whip by this most conservative man, whenever they strayed from the church's moral teaching's. However, when Ratzinger read the file of a priest who ties up and rapes little boys as young as eleven, this morality for Ratzinger consisted not of using any of his powers to stop this man from doing so, but in threatening those who sought to stop the priest.

Still JPII here really. John Paul II was an ultra-conservative who rejected most of Vatican II, Benedict is made in his image, but with a healthy dose of traditional pomp added, and lacking his predecessor's convenient background and political instincts.

Then the abuse scandal broke in America, and the church came under pressure. Because of this pressure, the church thought the experience of Ratzinger with supressing the cases made him the right man for the job of pope.

This is a gross mis-representation of his election, which I remember, the Spectator prophesied his advancement, based on his orthodoxy, his Non-Italian heritage, and his experience. It pointed out that he had no reasonable contendors of the same cailbre, and that he would be expected to be a (relatively) short-lived Pope who would then be replaced by one of the then too-young Cardinals who would have had time to mature.

The political-theological policy of the church is no relevance. There is legal policy concerning proper conduct. The church merely has to abide with that.

The Church has always reserved the right to administer punishment and penance internally, this is one of the few consistant policies that has never changed over all the centuries. As far as the relevence of the plotical-theolical restraints under which the Pope operates, they are (at the least) binding upon him as the justification for his actions, at most he actually believes them. Either way, they are of central importance and any criticism of the Pope must work within them.

If the church thinks itself incapable or unwilling to abide, than it will have to be closed. At least forbidden from practising, or from contact with minors. Nightclubs that refuse to cooperate in tackling endemic substance abuse are closed too, with disregard for the non-drugs dealing, law-abiding members.

This is an extremely foolish statement, and I think you know it. Any attempt to restrict the Catholic Church by a secular nation will, very litterally, engender a violent backlash. I suspect this is true even in France, with your vaunted religious restriction. You would find Roman Catholics coming out of the woodwork, and then probably to the barricades.

Reenk Roink

04-21-2010, 16:10

...

tl; I somewhat wish I dr :rolleyes:

Your third paragraph is the main reason. Aside from the poor attempt at amateur child psychology and the inefficacious jab at a certain noble dogma, the entire rhetorical value of the piece was poor due to its graphic nature and so it did very little for any kind of anti-Church argument.

One small dent for a church, one huge trauma for tens of thousands of victims.

But yes, your first sentence is true, and the victims did have it rough. :sad: :shame: However, they can always go to the Church for comfort, because aside from the exceptionally rare cases of pedophile priests, the Church provides peace, hope, and comfort. Because the Church is truly the one on the side of the victims.

Good to know that not only has the Church has been pretty good with removing the alleged pedophiles from contact with children, but now their leader goes and comforts a small group of them, which seems likely to be symbolic for his sympathy and solidarity for ALL the victims. May his actions provide some bit of comfort for their suffering. :bow:

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2010, 00:05

Louis has a point that is *was* Ratzinger's job to oversee matters of law enforcement within the church; and that this does include the *responsibility* for dealing with clergy that crosses the line between `intimacy' and `violation'. There cannot be an excuse of JP II's befehl ist befehl. In fact, as head of the former Inquisition he had the full authority of the pope to back his decision. More precisely: it was his job to make sure the pope didn't have to bother with that, and could focus on the role of the papacy, matters of faith and the relationship of the church with God. And he, Ratzinger in that position took the decision that it made good sense for the papacy to cover up, rather than clean up its act. So he certainly is to blame.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-22-2010, 08:39

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 10:05

Good to know that not only has the Church has been pretty good with removing the alleged pedophiles from contact with children

So if a teacher raped your daughter you would think of it as a fitting punishment to have him swap schools?

Fragony

04-22-2010, 11:04

If it wouldn't have come out nothing would have happened, whatever the church does is too little and too late, and these guys still feel like they are victims of a witch-hunt. The moral authority, disgusting.

Fragony

04-22-2010, 11:18

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2010, 15:31

Until Vatican I the Pope was head of the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition. How can you suggest that even in this day and age John Paul did not know what was going on? Further, how do you account for the continuing attempts to cover things up once the scandal broke and the Pope certainly did know.

That was not what I said. I am not saying JP II is some kind of poor, innocent little pope who never knew of anything; but I am saying that using JP II as excuse to diminish Ratzinger's responsibility does not hold water.

EDIT: For an analogy: consider a massive fraud in a company to project a higher stock value. Whoever is in charge of the book keeping is clearly responsible. Nevermind now if it was originally the CEO's idea or if the CEO `knew it too'. See what I mean?

Reenk Roink

04-22-2010, 15:44

So if a teacher raped your daughter you would think of it as a fitting punishment to have him swap schools?

Bad analogy in most cases, it would be more like the teacher being put on leave (away from children) until the alleged charges were investigated and a legal case could be mounted. Too much slander when it comes to pedophilia anyway (see Michael Jackson :shame:).

In the meanwhile, I would seek my peace and comfort somewhere, maybe the Church.

drone

04-22-2010, 16:52

That was not what I said. I am not saying JP II is some kind of poor, innocent little pope who never knew of anything; but I am saying that using JP II as excuse to diminish Ratzinger's responsibility does not hold water.

Come on, Ratzinger was only following orders. ~;)

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 16:59

Bad analogy in most cases, it would be more like the teacher being put on leave (away from children) until the alleged charges were investigated and a legal case could be mounted. Too much slander when it comes to pedophilia anyway (see Michael Jackson :shame:).

In the meanwhile, I would seek my peace and comfort somewhere, maybe the Church.

...And the reason the catholic church is going to hell, is because they don't do the bolded part.

Reenk Roink

04-22-2010, 17:20

...And the reason the catholic church is going to hell, is because they don't do the bolded part.

Not true, the Church itself investigated a majority of the reports. And some priests were even prosecuted by civil authorities. Of course to some, just because not every charge ended up in a conviction is in itself grounds for criticism (haters gonna hate :shrug:). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of these kind of sexual abuse cases never get to court (also keep in mind that many of the reports were against people who had since died).

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 17:25

Not true, the Church itself investigated a majority of the reports.

Who cares? They have no authority to investigate anything whatsoever.

....And this is why I made the analogy above, the "punishment" those "investigations" result in is by sending the priest to some monestary. A laughable reaction, and one that should be illegal.

Strike For The South

04-22-2010, 18:51

Who cares? They have no authority to investigate anything whatsoever.

....And this is why I made the analogy above, the "punishment" those "investigations" result in is by sending the priest to some monestary. A laughable reaction, and one that should be illegal.

He doesnt beilive what he is typing....just FYI

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 19:12

He doesnt beilive what he is typing....just FYI

Who? And what does that have to do with anything?

Banquo's Ghost

04-22-2010, 19:14

At least the Church leaders of England and Wales have had the decency to make a comprehensive apology (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0422/breaking45.html). They also led the Church in setting up safeguards for children, so there is action as well.

The statement described the crimes carried out by some priests and religious figures as a “profound scandal” and said: “They bring deep shame to the whole church. But shame is not enough. The abuse of children is a grievous sin against God.

“Therefore we focus not on shame but on our sorrow for these sins. They are the personal sins of only a very few. But we are bound together in the Body of Christ and, therefore, their sins touch us all.

“We express our heartfelt apology and deep sorrow to those who have suffered abuse, those who have felt ignored, disbelieved or betrayed.

“We ask their pardon, and the pardon of God for these terrible deeds done in our midst. There can be no excuses.”

A good start. Pity it had to be dragged out.

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 19:32

Seamus Fermanagh

04-22-2010, 19:36

At least the Church leaders of England and Wales have had the decency to make a comprehensive apology (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0422/breaking45.html). They also the Church in setting up safeguards for children, so there is action as well.

A good start. Pity it had to be dragged out.

Sad indeed. The US version of this scandal cost the Church tens of thousands of parishioners, millions of dollars, and tarnished the image of the Church for years (even to this day). Recovery did not begin until a "zero tolerance" policy was promulgated by the -- in many cases new -- bishops; bishops directly involved with the coverup were removed from their sees, civil prosecutions were not impeded, and an active effort was made to reach out to, apoligize to, and help those who had been victimized. Benedictus XVI was in the loop for ALL of that as a cardinal, and probably more directly involved than Johannes Paulus II, whose health had been failing and who turned more toward the spiritual than the daily management of the church. That the Church then fell into EXACTLY THE SAME STUPID RESPONSE PATTERN THAT DID NOT WORK AND COULD NEVER WORK rather annoys me. God forgive me for my anger.

Reenk Roink

04-22-2010, 22:18

Horetore, they do have the authority to do their own investigations, they are an exceptionally large, powerful, and influential organization, which is why they can bypass (and some would say ignore) the civil authorities (much to the haters' ire).

https://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6421/haterss.gif (https://img704.imageshack.us/i/haterss.gif/)

He doesnt beilive what he is typing....just FYI

How do you know what I believe or not more than myself? :inquisitive: FYI I believe about 78% of what I'm typing in this thread. Sure I'm pushing things a bit dramatically, but definitely no more than the stuff we've read in this thread by the haters.

PanzerJaeger

04-23-2010, 07:00

Fragony

04-23-2010, 07:36

Banquo's Ghost

04-23-2010, 07:50

Still unable to call these priests by their real name; criminals.

I am far from satisfied.

While repentance might be a big thing in their closed society, it's irrelevant to the rest of us. They will have to turn these cases over to the police. And at the very instant they learn of them, not 20 years later.

That's why I called it a start. All rehabilitation has to start with a full and frank acknowledgement of the crime. Quite apart from Reenk Roink's rather bizarre claim that the Church is above the law, this also requires that criminals are charged and judged by the law of the land, and if guilty, imprisoned. The organisation that made it possible for these criminals to operate and then to avoid the law, is by definition, a conspirator, and therefore at the very least is culpable for compensation. True repentance would be shown by paying compensation voluntarily and gladly, rather than forcing victims to press claim through the courts.

Once both admission and action have shown penance for the sins, and satisfied the requirement of the secular law, then forgiveness and hope for the future may grow apace.

Fragony

04-23-2010, 12:15

Ah, #2 is at it again. Not the jews this time no sir, this witch-hunt is really the doing of the Freemasons. Hellowwwwww you aren't allowed turn altarboys inside-out in your horror-dungeon, and corpus christi doesn't go like that. We know you really like it but it's a crime. They are only angry it got out in the open, how very disrespectfull of us non-pedo's

Seamus Fermanagh

04-23-2010, 13:37

rory_20_uk

04-23-2010, 13:40

That's why I called it a start. All rehabilitation has to start with a full and frank acknowledgement of the crime. Quite apart from Reenk Roink's rather bizarre claim that the Church is above the law, this also requires that criminals are charged and judged by the law of the land, and if guilty, imprisoned. The organisation that made it possible for these criminals to operate and then to avoid the law, is by definition, a conspirator, and therefore at the very least is culpable for compensation. True repentance would be shown by paying compensation voluntarily and gladly, rather than forcing victims to press claim through the courts.

Once both admission and action have shown penance for the sins, and satisfied the requirement of the secular law, then forgiveness and hope for the future may grow apace.

I agree. So far they are concentrating on "regret" and praying, rather than the more expensive approach of divesting themselves of money to the injured parties. Talk is cheap, after all - and for some reason they think this will be enough??!?

~:smoking:

Fragony

04-23-2010, 14:03

....huh? Cite please?

Useless to you it's in Dutch

Louis VI the Fat

04-23-2010, 14:12

It is Latin America's turn - half of the world's Catholics.

We might be in for the biggest round yet.

Brazil, the largest country in Latin America and by extension the country with the biggest Catholic population in the world, has been shocked by the pedophile scandal in recent weeks.
A hidden-camera video broadcast on television -- and now being sold illicitly on the streets -- shows one 84-year-old priest in northeastern Brazil, Luiz Marques Barbosa, receiving oral sex from a former choir boy in front of an altar.
Two other priests were implicated in the video, in which three former choir boys said they were sexually abused as minors by them. The video has triggered a parliamentary inquiry and Barbosa's arrest.
Colombian bishop opens by echoing Rome's defense that evil outside forces are to blame. This time, the freemasons. (See Frags post above).

http://www.france24.com/en/20100423-pedophile-scandal-engulfs-church-latin-america

Rhyfelwyr

04-23-2010, 17:24

Oh come on, this has the fingerprints of the homosexual Jewmasons all over it.

Reenk Roink

04-23-2010, 22:46

Is this part of the 78% you believe or the 22% that you don't?

Part. I mean who really denies the fact that the Church carries out their own investigations? And not just on charges of pedophilia. The Church for example investigates claims of miracles and saints I believe. Public schools here carry out their own investigations and the Catholic Church is quite a bit more as an organization. Do you people honestly believe the only investigation should (or even worse, does :inquisitive:) take place by civil authority?

Quite apart from Reenk Roink's rather bizarre claim that the Church is above the law, this also requires that criminals are charged and judged by the law of the land, and if guilty, imprisoned.

Hmm Banquo, are you attributing to me that I believe the Church should be above the law or that I believe in the pretty well established fact that the church is for some intents and purposes able to bypass civil authority?

I'm somewhat disappointed by the hater-side arguments here and what they resort to, you do have more material to make a decent case but... :no: :juggle2:

Anyway, given that most of the allegations would never make it to court to begin with, it's quite telling of the Church that they still take the time to investigate independently themselves what they could simply ignore. :bow: And of course, how people forget that the civil authorities have convicted a handful of priests. Now, the haters may cry that the number of convictions is exceptionally low as compared to the accusations, and then I would point them to the general statistics of sexual abuse crimes which makes that largely unsurprising.

Rhyfelwyr

04-23-2010, 23:38

Anyway, given that most of the allegations would never make it to court to begin with, it's quite telling of the Church that they still take the time to investigate independently themselves what they could simply ignore. :bow:

So when they could have got away with it completely it was very noble of them to give out some symbolic 'punishments', and then try to brush the whole thing under the carpet without accepting any responsibility or giving any justice to their victims?

I'm going to continue hating on all those involved in this farce. What would you do yourself, Reenk, if you were in a position of authority in the Catholic Church when you found out some priests had been abusing kids? My gut reaction would be to set the mob on them if I didn't get to them first personally. These guys are the scum of the scum, they're a whole level beyond your average murderer, to brush it all off as a conspiracy by Jews, homosexuals and freemasons is beyond belief. It's the sort of reaction you would expect from some evangelical wingnut, not a church with such a strong tradition and so many fine, reasonable minds.

Crazed Rabbit

04-23-2010, 23:49

True repentance would be shown by paying compensation voluntarily and gladly, rather than forcing victims to press claim through the courts.

And just who should they pay compensation to? Everyone who claims they were abused? Even with having to go through the courts in America there are frauds who would falsely claim abuse for money.

Not that the conduct in not throwing predatory priests to the wolves of the legal system is not shameful, and the stubbornness in acknowledging their sins not also shameful.

CR

Fragony

04-24-2010, 00:23

And just who should they pay compensation to? Everyone who claims they were abused? Even with having to go through the courts in America there are frauds who would falsely claim abuse for money.

Not that the conduct in not throwing predatory priests to the wolves of the legal system is not shameful, and the stubbornness in acknowledging their sins not also shameful.

CR

Throwing who to the wolves? Kid fiddlers? These perverts? And those that would rather cover it up?

Reenk Roink

04-24-2010, 00:30

So when they could have got away with it completely it was very noble of them to give out some symbolic 'punishments', and then try to brush the whole thing under the carpet without accepting any responsibility or giving any justice to their victims?

I'm going to continue hating on all those involved in this farce. What would you do yourself, Reenk, if you were in a position of authority in the Catholic Church when you found out some priests had been abusing kids? My gut reaction would be to set the mob on them if I didn't get to them first personally. These guys are the scum of the scum, they're a whole level beyond your average murderer, to brush it all off as a conspiracy by Jews, homosexuals and freemasons is beyond belief. It's the sort of reaction you would expect from some evangelical wingnut, not a church with such a strong tradition and so many fine, reasonable minds.

The problem is I don't view the Church's actions as having any kind of malicious intent. They may not have been the best PR moves, but given that say 90%+ of these priests would never have been charged (and I mean the truly guilty ones), because you don't get a video of them being blown by a kid except exceptionally rarely, that I view the Church trying to rehabilitate many of them and separate many of them from children quite favorably, instead of just ignoring it which was well within their ability to do. It says a lot about the character of the Church.

Yes, they may not cooperate as much as we like with civil authorities, but it's quite clear that they had a completely different idea on how to rehabilitate pedophiles in their midst. And I'd dare say that given the extremely low chances that the cases would hold up in civil court, what they did was effective. We here probably all want retribution and punishment for the crime of pedophilia. The Church may not exactly think in the same way. :shrug: And they do have the influence and power to make their opinion matter.

Did they want to hide it? Sure, it is a scandal on an incredibly powerful and influential institution. It's not something I completely agree with though I can easily see why they did it, and especially with their generally proactive attitude towards the problem, why air the dirty laundry?

This is why I'm standing up for the good guys. :bow:

As for the select few Church figures trying to blame it on everyone else and their dog, they got no defense from me (this is what I meant by actual good material, not a gif that has pope turn to pedo). But to condemn the whole Church for their wrong actions is silly. ESPECIALLY now with the apologies and promises to punish the truly guilty and what not.

Besides, what did the Pope say again? :wink: What is his rank as compared to the others getting all the press?

Louis VI the Fat

04-24-2010, 00:50

This is why I'm standing up for the good guys. :bow:Stand up 78% for this, certainly no laughing matter, nor particularly fit for a frivolous shrug of the shoulder:

Thousands of children were worked like slaves without proper food or clothing. Their teachers and older children physically, emotionally and sexually abused them. The most vulnerable were subject to the most vile attacks. This does not describe some Dickenesque poorhouse or African labor camp. This describes religious schools in Ireland in the 20th century, run by the Roman Catholic Church.

A nine-year investigation by Ireland’s Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse published its final results Wednesday. The damning five-volume report took into account evidence from 2,500 individuals (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6325012.ece) who suffered abuse in reformatories, industrial schools and orphanages run by Catholic religious orders.
“Hunger was a constant companion. We were child slaves,” said Patrick Walsh (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6326754.ece), a man who went through the nightmarish system. In 1955, when he was 2 years old, he and his two older brothers and 6-month-old sister were charged with “having a parent who does not exercise proper guardianship.” His mother had left Walsh’s father, and so under Irish law, Walsh’s father could have the children sent away, unless his wife returned.

“It was a different age then,” Walsh said (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/05/20/Children_suffered_abuse_of_many_types_both_physical_and_emot/), “you would have to compare it to Iran. Ireland was a theocratic state.”Walsh was sent to a Catholic-run “industrial school” called Artane.

Ireland’s commission paints a horrible picture of these schools. “Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions,” states the Executive Summary (http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2009/childabusecommission/index.pdf?via=rel) of the report. Here are some more shocking statements from the report:

A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.
Older boys abused younger boys and the system did not offer protection from bullying of this kind.
Children were frequently hungry and food was inadequate, inedible and badly prepared in many schools. Witnesses spoke of scavenging for food from waste bins and animal feed.
Clothing was a particular problem in boys’ schools where children often worked for long hours outdoors on farms. In addition, boys were often left in their soiled and wet work clothes throughout the day and wore them for long periods.
Accommodation was cold, spartan and bleak. Sanitary provision was primitive in most boys’ schools and general hygiene facilities were poor.

What’s worse, this abuse took place with the full knowledge and backing of the Irish government and the Vatican. The whole time, the Catholic Church and the religious orders knew exactly what was going on, but they covered it up.
Walsh described the system as a marriage of convenience (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6326754.ece) between church and state. He explained:
The church received grants, which were the lifeblood of the religious orders, and the children were used as the means to fill their pockets with cash. I learnt in later years that Artane would get a check, say for £10,000, every month from the government.

Artane would send £8,000 to Rome. As a consequence we were badly fed, and we worked 12-hour days in the fields and workshops. I was put to work in the shoe shop.This school, run by a group of monks who called themselves the “Christian Brothers,” used the children they were meant to look after to turn out a profit. The report confirms that the religious orders were running these schools for their own enrichment: “Industrial schools were intended to provide basic industrial training to young people …. In reality, the industrial training afforded by the schools was of a nature that served the needs of the institution rather than the needs of the child.”

“Ultimately, the bishops, the government and the cardinals in the Vatican knew what was going on,” said Walsh.
Rather than deal with the problem of sexual abuse, the church and government simply covered it up. “Cases of abuse were managed with a view to minimizing the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation [of the Christian Brothers]. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator,” states the report.
When the Catholic authorities discovered that a lay member had sexually abused a child, they would report him to the police. But when a member of their own order was caught abusing, if anything he was simply moved on to another school. “The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded,” the report says.

The Catholic Church refused to deal with the problem. The report states (emphasis mine throughout):
The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.
The church rarely informed the Department of Education of any abuse, and even when it did, the department “colluded in the silence,” says the report. At times, men kicked out of the religious order for child abuse went on to get a job as a teacher within days.
Instructions (http://irregulartimes.com/vaticancoverup.html) issued from the Vatican in 1962 stated that in cases of sexual abuse, “those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and … be restrained by a perpetual silence …” (“Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation,” Vatican Press). Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict xvi, endorsed this view in a letter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection) sent out to all bishops on May 18, 2001.

The Vatican doesn’t care about the children. It just cares about the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church.This is what a “marriage of convenience” between a state and the Roman Catholic Church looks like, and this, according to Bible prophecy, is the type of union coming soon to all of Europe. This report shows exactly why you must beware of the rising Catholic Church.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6206.4622.0.0Pederast slave camps, ran in Europe in the 20th century, by a theocratic state. Perhaps one ought to look less to London, and more to Rome to explain much of Ireland's enduring misery of the 20th century.