Catholic Sexual Abuse Scandals

[testing]

Son of an Anglican Priest.
Anglicans are allowed to marry.
The first Pope had a wife and family, he even said you should not be a priest without having known your OWN family.

The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane rose to the most powerful position in Australian Politics, the Governor General of Australia. He was fired by the queen because when he was Bishop he helped cover up allegations of child abuse of a priest.

Seems like the same sort of action needs to happen with the pope. If they cover up allegations that have not been proven false, should be out on their arse.

^^^^ GOOD for the queen. Maybe that's what we really need, some monarchy. (joking)

And it makes me wonder: When one single little old 80-something-year-old lady can kick butts and take names that effectively, what exactly is stopping the pope and the bishops and all the Catholic parents who pay lots of good money to send their children to catholic schools? What are they THINKING? They could put a stop to it.

 

[randomsomeone]

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind why someone would believe in a faith that's brought so much domination, misery and tyranny to the world based on the mere fact 'they feel they have to believe in something'.

Perhaps because you choose to ignore any of the good things it has brought (and continues to bring) to the world. You seems quite selective in your perceptions, nevermind the misperceptions.

 

[soulseeker]

WOW okay I'll TRY to answer these "nose bleed" questions ahahahahahaha
are they even questions?? hehehe I guess some aren't

when you say teachings, does it mean that you agree with the rejection of contraceptives by the vatican in Africa? Does it mean that you agree with the 'teaching' of original sin, where all humans are ridden with sin at birth? What about vicarious redemption, where you can chuck your misdeeds and wrongdoings onto a scapegoat and at once become innocent of a crime without paying for it?

I agree with rejection of contraceptives if you don't want to have babies then don't have sex... why would you want to have sex anyways? to have babies. If you wanna have sex for fun can't you be sensitive enough that what you're doing will have consequences.. so if you have sex for fun you should be ready to face the consequences and take care of that baby.. using contraceptives is like depriving people life.

Original sin.... well the Church teaches that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and eve and not their personal sin itself. THEIR personal sin is the "original sin" itself. but original sin refers to its consequences.
so we lost the original state of harmony and friendship with God because sin that we continue to feel until today

the third one about redemption... the Church does not teach us to chuck our misdeeds and become innocent of a crime without paying for it. Christ redeemed us and He is the greatest sacrifice God gave but it doesn't mean that we are free from all of our sins... I mean we are human and it's our responsibility to fight against temptation and learn with the Church and try to understand and live the Gospels we learn everyday or Sundays.
[/QUOTE]

How do you know that? Do you not think it is far more likely that you believe it so bad that you feel a self-created presence instead of an actual one? Despite the fact that it's been proven humans can create soporific illusions or convince themselves of a non-existent presence if their environment and state of mind are in such and such a way, do you still maintain against all the odds that you are genuinely experiencing a one-to-one link with 'your' god?

How do I know what? Which one that I feel rejected or how do I know that I have a real God that I believe in?

I guess the second one hehehehe

And what’s so wrong with believing? I mean does everything one has to do needs proof? I want to believe in the Catholic faith and I myself am not asking for some real tangible proof.

And that’s why it’s called faith… believing in something you don’t see. Well if there really really is a God or not .. what would I lose if I believe? NOTHING

As far as what I’ve learned about my faith, it does teach good things. It teaches things like helping, reaching out, sacrificing for others, the basic things that humans have to do. And it teaches good morals.

As long as the teachings are for the greater good of many.. then what’s to lose if I believe and live it out?

I see nothing wrong with Buddhism, Hinduism and etc.. they kind of all teach things that is for the good of many and not destruction and evil.

But I choose to believe in God … in the Catholic God…


So…. “your” God…

 

[randomsomeone]

I have found something more than that

 

[Jana]

I am Chatolic myself. Chatolic Church is built from people, people are not perfect, they can be very good and very bad. But Chuch does not depend just on people (I will not argue this one, in my eyes God worked and helped His Church. I will not read a hunders times discussed topics about beliving or nonbeliving. I have my opinion, anyone else can have other opinion.)I think that revealing things about pedophilia is good, the truth is here to prevent similar crimes in future. So I find this talk chatarsic, in past Church always had times of mistakes and times of being real moral vertical.
At the end, people in celibat can be more focused on acting and meditating. Priest without family can be more active and indenpendent (in ideal version) because when you have family, you'll think twice before put family into risk. When you don't have family, your sacrifice is just yours.

 

[peter]

I'm not a Christian, and don't care a bit about the different sects of the church. What I do hate to see though, are the bad priests and nuns who make everyone view every priest or nun as a a bad person, when in fact many are still good and honest people.

Agreed.

 

[StarGateGirl]

I thought I'd throw my two cents in here, because its been a few years since I had a really good gripe about the Catholic Church.

No offense to soulseeker, but you do sound so much like many young Catholics I grew up with (coupled with a predilection for stream of consciousness posting, which just grates on me). I shall elaborate:

The Catholic Church gets most of its members through the baptism of babies. Babies who have no choice or say. Is it not odd, we have ages of consent for sex, but not religion? Anywho...these innocents are taught, by parents and church members that Catholicism is the only right religion, and other Christians are a close second, monotheists third, polytheists fourth followed by agnostics and finally the evil minions of Satan (atheists). Young children are most vulnerable, because they believe this, and have no capacity to question it, much like kids think Santa and the Easter BUnny are real.

As these kids grow up, they usually find themselves going to Catholic schools, where these beliefs are reinforced. Once they emerge from this schooling, their minds are well and truely set into a certain pattern of thinking:

The Catholic Church is right
If I disagree it is MY job to change my thinking (through prayer/study) until I agree

My mind boggles at how in this day and age of scientific rationality people can just refuse to apply their rational skills to religious beliefs.

It is this type of thinking that the church perpetuates that enables abuses to go on. Catholics are so convinced the church is the final authority. Look at soulseeker, totally unaware abuses happen in "other countries".

soulseeker; these abuses happen in your country too. In every country, in every church, because the ones who commit these abuses are humans. The problem with the Catholic church, is that it hides the abusers.

My mother's fiance P, ex-prison officer, went to our local Catholic Church with us for Christmas Eve Mass. Entrance procession begins, our Parish Priest is accomanied for this busy mass by an assistant Priest, low and behold if P doesn't say, rather too loud, "Holy shit that blokes a pedophile!". Turns out he knew him from the prison system.

Now, the problem here, is that this man, who had been convicted, was in a large room, WITH CHILDREN, because the Catholic Church, who he works for, allowed it.

That in my opinion is UNACCEPTABLE.

The Church is not to blame for the fact that some members are sickos, it IS to blame for not kicking them out when it finds out. The latest issue is that The Pope, the highest authority in the church, the man who all other Catholic look to on matters of faith, was prepared hush up abuses on children, children whose parents trust the Catholic Church to be a congregation of good Christian people. And the head of that group, enables child abuses, by hiding their crimes and protecting them from justice.

I'd like to hope this would make Catholic's realize that The Pope is in no way a perfect man. He too is human, and makes mistakes. You want perfection, don't look on this Earth. Think for yourself, protect yourself and your families, because you can't always trust the people you think you can.

 

[Shai Gar]

^^^^ GOOD for the queen. Maybe that's what we really need, some monarchy. (joking)

And it makes me wonder: When one single little old 80-something-year-old lady can kick butts and take names that effectively, what exactly is stopping the pope and the bishops and all the Catholic parents who pay lots of good money to send their children to catholic schools? What are they THINKING? They could put a stop to it.

The pope doesn't want to.
He's probably done it as well...

Remember, he was the head of the spanish inquisition.

 

[Stu]

I can't bear to read this thread having been raised a R.C. and having parents born in the west of Ireland in the 1920s, but I will say that my 35 year disillusionment with the church has been transformed to utter disgust with its upper management. ( I can't even imagine the inner heartbreak of those who have had decades of deep devotion to their faith.

 

[randomsomeone]

My mind boggles at how in this day and age of scientific rationality people can just refuse to apply their rational skills to religious beliefs.

Trust me, there are plenty us who are quite rational. Do you really think was have switched off our minds??? Far from it, I assure you.

I'd like to hope this would make Catholic's realize that The Pope is in no way a perfect man. He too is human, and makes mistakes. You want perfection, don't look on this Earth. Think for yourself, protect yourself and your families, because you can't always trust the people you think you can.

I agree completely and I suspect so does the pope. You make a very good point here and Cathoics would do well to follow your advise. However, one might also say that this is actually the path to a fuller understanding of Catholic spirituality....and this has implications far, far beyond the current scandal.

 

[Shai Gar]

Trust me, there are plenty us who are quite rational. Do you really think was have switched off our minds??? Far from it, I assure you.


I agree completely and I suspect so does the pope. You make a very good point here and Cathoics would do well to follow your advise. However, one might also say that this is actually the path to a fuller understanding of Catholic spirituality....and this has implications far, far beyond the current scandal.

Rational...
Believing a former Nazi Youth/Spanish Inquisitor is the spokesperson for a Jewish Zombie...

 

[randomsomeone]

Rational...
Believing a former Nazi Youth/Spanish Inquisitor is the spokesperson for a Jewish Zombie...

^^^An example of irrational. It cuts both ways.

 

[Kavalan]

The pope doesn't want to.
He's probably done it as well...

Remember, he was the head of the spanish inquisition.

The Papacy has no control over Anglicans. The Archbishop of Canterbury is top of the Anglican System and even then he is limited to that of England.

 

[Shai Gar]

I never said he did, I don't believe that was even in question.

Each Archbishop is the highest in his own right. Even an Archbishops authority over any other bishop is merely ceremonial.

 

[randomsomeone]

I'm not sure anybody (clergy or lay) is a fan of the clericalism that found it's way into Catholicism long ago. It's not really all that authentic, and undergirds this abuse scandal in no small way. Clericalism really is a carry over of another age, but frankly because it's familiar, even lay Catholics find it comfortable (even preferable) today even as the Church itself (yes, even the clergy) tries to break free from this towards a more authentic models that are also part of our tradition.

I'm not saying there isn't a rightful role for the priests, deacons, bishops, sisters...there sure is. But using them as some reason to ignore our own responsibilities, freedoms, and calling was never part of the plan.

I think the scandals we see today will make the history books...but is it indicative of deeper disconnects that have been around for far too long.

 

[ENTroP]

Yet more evidence that religion does not necessarily make somebody a better person. Won't catch professor Dawkins molesting his graduate students out back...

 

[Shai Gar]

you dont know that for sure. Maybe he has a really hot graduate student.

 

[jn56uytrx]

...these abuses happen in your country too. In every country, in every church, because the ones who commit these abuses are humans.

This is the thing to be remembered in all of this, I think. I do not believe the Catholic Church is evil. It is an organization of humans. There will always be choices made by the humans within any organization that violate the value judgments of others.

It violates my own value judgments to hear of cases where priests have abused their spiritual authority over vulnerable members of their congregation.

It would violate my value judgments to know that those in organizational authority have chosen to protect their hierarchical network over the vulnerabilities of those they serve in role of spiritual guardianship. It would not violate my value judgments to hear that those within the Catholic hierarchy struggle with delicate issues of how best to balance the well-being of both the laypeople they have been asked to be spiritual guardians over and the priests who have chosen to sacrifice their life in service.

The thing is, we often do not know which sort of hierarchical leadership we are dealing with. It is easy to jump to accusations of the former and say they're just protecting their hierarchy, and I suspect that in many cases that is true. Yet, I think it unfair to dismiss in the same breath those within the Catholic Church who are truly trying to honor their role as spiritual guardian, both for the laypeople they serve and for the priests they serve with.

If a priest has been, without question, convicted of the crime of abusing a vulnerable member of their congregation, I do not value the replacing of that priest into a position of authority over another congregation. I believe that is a grave error in judgment.

However, I do not minimize the weight that must be on the other members of the clergy who understand deeply the sacrifice a priest makes to serve their people and the additional sacrifice it would be to remove them from the service they have chosen at such great cost.

While I do not value the replacement within a place where there is potential for continued abuse at all, I do value greatly love and compassion for the human dignity and human frailty present in all of us, and I think it of great honor when compassion is shown to one so prominently and publicly exposed in that frailty. I would not value shaming or exclusion of anyone in a place of human vulnerability -- in this case the abused or the abuser.

I have no real opinion about turning a priest who has abused members of his congregation over to civil justice. I think civil justice is one option for justice, and I don't think those within a spiritual framework are necessarily exempt from the civil justice framework, but I also don't think it's the only effective framework for justice. I mostly feel unconcerned about the shielding of someone from that civil justice framework. I think often a society accustomed to seeing the civil justice framework as the only valid one can have difficulty perceiving the efficacy of any other.

 

[randomsomeone]

Well said, tovlo. Yes, administratively they have got to come to a better way of handling these kinds of situations....that, and I suspect the priest themselves will need a way out. Only they see their inner turmoil...if they can identify a risk and take some action (in the name of service), all the better before even one such incident occurs!! There are some theological reasonings behind continuance in the priesthood, but theoretical, high-minded constructs aside, there is a very real pastoral need out there and they need to reconsider the theology and make some real ground-level pastoral changes.....now!!

We have had a good number of cases around here where I live...in most situations the administrators clearly needed to intervene. They really need a clear mandate from Rome (I think) to move forward as directly as they ought. I think this would really help both the priests and everybody else. Perhaps they already have this, but thought of it as solely a "U.S." problem.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

According to psychological research, there doesn't seem to be anything about the Catholic religion/discipline which predisposes Catholic Clergy to be more likely to abuse:


"First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children."

Quote taken from "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse," by Thomas Plante, Ph.D., ABPP, Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University.
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html