Delicate question for Catholic converts...

[In2why]

I am a life-long Catholic and this issue is very close to my heart. I grew up in a parish that had 2 abusing priests that I know of and the bishop of our diocese knowingly shuffled these priests around and put more children in harms way.

 

LIke others have said, I don't stay or leave because of the priests. I stay because, to me, it is THE church. I stay for the Eucharist. I stay for all the things that make up the church, not because of the hierarchy.

 

I do have anger over the actions of the bishops. But that anger is not over cover-ups, that anger is over the fact that they continued to put children in harms way even when they knew there was a problem, even when they knew the supposed "cures" weren't working.

 

About the "cover ups" ... think about it. None of the families wanted this stuff to become public. Think about societal attitudes toward the children ... "they made it up." Most of society had a "blame the victim" attitude when it came to sexual abuse. Although we have made great strides in this area, it is still a huge problem. The stigma attached to a child who was the victim of sexual abuse was so strong that families would have to move away in order for their children to have a fresh start. This was an issue that was swept under the rug in all parts of society - fathers abusing daughters, teachers, coaches, and scout leaders abusing children ... it simply wasn't talked about. Keeping things quiet was done partly out of a desire to protect the reputations of children. Unfortunately, the other motive was to protect the reputation of the Church, which was morally reprehensible and did cause a huge backlash. Only after this has been brought into the light can there be healing.

 

 

Yes. Especially about the families. I also know that my Grandmother and many in her age group, would not have wanted to believe the child and would have made any excuse for the behavior. It was a different time and the fear and shame would have been overwhelming.

[love2read]

We don't consider ourselves under the authority of individuals, but under the authority of the Church, established by Christ. When we know exactly what the Church has always taught, we aren't mislead by those wolves in sheep's clothing. Cover-ups? It's usually not one person hiding the truth, but a line of misrepresentations starting with perpetrators. There have always been "bad" men in the church and elsewhere. That doesn't negate the authority of the Church in my eyes.

[Murphy101]

I think you have to take the time period that these cover-ups took place in. Abuse of any kind was not spoken of publicly. It was often believed that the victim would be shamed if the actions of the abuser was brought to light. That is just how it was back then. Judging the actions of the bishops with our 21st century sensibilities doesn't work.

 

Also, some bishops believed that keeping the abusing priest in the system, where they could be watched was better than eventually having them free in the public to what they will. Again, this type of abuse was not prosecuted by the law as aggressively as it is now. A couple of years in jail, maybe, and the abuser would be free. Was this thinking by the bishops right, probably not. But again, we are judging with today's standards.

 

Finally, The Church for me is not the very fallible people who represent The Church. For me, it is the Eucharist, Christ, and the teachings that have been passed on to us.

 

:iagree: with all of this. I think there were many in the hierarchy who felt their hands were tied. If the parents or other witnesses refuse to speak up and even actually fear others finding out about this, yet there is this child - a child that has been wounded by someone they should be able to count on for healing - what is the best they could have done for that child? Sadly, 25+ years ago, making an agreement to not say anything and give a settlement for counseling is what the parents felt was best. It's easy to say otherwise NOW.

 

Maybe. Sexual abuse investigations and trials are still tremendously traumatic for the victims. And it doesn't always lead to convictions or justice, which means the victim might feel further injured by that lack of closure. More than a few regret coming forward for good reasons. I know three personally who say they felt the courts added to their trauma.

 

what I think I'm hearing is that for a Catholic the Roman Catholic Church is IT. And the organized, visible, presence of the RC Church is incredibly significant to the living out of the faith. So, going elsewhere isn't a reasonable option.

 

Yes. There is no other denomination for a Roman Catholic. If I were to leave and attend a baptist church - that would be completely changing and leaving my faith. At best, I guess I could choose a different rite, but it would still lead to Rome and fall within the hierarchy.

[TranquilMind]

CanadianMumof4: As a practicing RC, firstly, I feel awful for the victims of these horrible crimes. It is not OK and the people who have committed these crimes should be held accountable. I feel awful for the church as a whole that the terrible actions of a few can deter so many other people from staying with their faith, or joining it.

 

 

I personally get really annoyed when people harp on & on & on & on about how awful it is in the church, and how they will never go to church now because of the scandals....but they have no trouble sending their children to school (teachers have been known to take advantage of their students), and have no trouble sending them to cub scouts/girl guides (same things have happened), etc, etc.

 

 

There is a vast difference. Yes, sexual abuse happens on a sporadic basis in all sorts of settings. But the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse for decades, simply switching priests who were accused from location to location, every time they offended again and never with warning to parents in that new jurisdiction. Thousands of victims finally came forth exposing this pattern. The pattern is the problem.

 

This is totally different than saying there was this one bad priest (or pastor or teacher or boy scout leader) who offended and the hierarchy removed him from all contact with children permanently the moment his offenses came to light. That is a hierarchy you can respect for doing the right thing, whether it was a church, a school, the Boy Scouts, or whomever the venue might be.

 

This is a critical difference that cannot be ignored, I think, so I wonder the same thing as the OP.

 

99% of priests are good. We need to remember that and not paint everyone in the church with the same brush.

 

 

I'm sure that's true. I've met great priests myself and attending the RCC the first few years of our marriage.

 

It isn't the good priests that concern anyone, it is a hierarchy that covered up systematic abuse and moved abusing priests to new batches of kids without notifying parents since the 1940s that is the problem.

[TranquilMind]

Parrothead: And the scandal did not stay hidden. The Holy Spirit brought it to light. Measures are now in place to provide more protection for God's children.

 

 

Yes, it did, but not because the hierarchy exposed its own sin, but because the generations of abused kids started coming forth. I'm bothered by the suggestion that it didn't matter if the cover-up went on for decades world-wide, harming thousands of children then because NOW, we are finally putting measures into place that will minimize this problem. The only way I would believe that is if another decade or two pass and no new victims come forth from priests who were shielded from exposure by the hierarchy.

 

Integrity matters. It mattered for the Jews, bibilically, and it matters for those who say they are God's representatives on earth.

 

 

But even if I'm missing something, I'm not going anywhere.

I do understand this Catholic mentality that "we are the one true church" and no one else will do, having many Catholic relatives. I have a big problem with the deceptiveness of the hierarchy, that I would not have if it repented in "sackcloth and ashes" and voluntarily, proactively made restitution and public apology to each individual harmed over those decades. But itstead, it keeps to this day legally defending itself from these suits, so the walk does not match the talk. That is my specific problem.

 

The walk just has to match the talk for me.

[TranquilMind]

VinNY: We are all still pissed about how this was handled in the church

That's good to hear someone on the inside say that.

 

it should have been nipped in the bud, but it wasn't. Why? I will keep asking,too. (I have my theories)

 

WHY? What are your theories? I can't imagine ANY justification for this deceit over decades and decades, worldwide. I can't wrap my head around it if it were the Boy Scouts, much less if it is those who claim to be God's Representative on earth.

 

I'd really like to hear your theories. I can think of only one. Concerns about giving dropping off. But that happened anyway because they covered it up.

 

I just always trust a person/organization less and forever if it HAS to be exposed, as opposed to one that outed itself and repented and changed.

[Canadianmumof5]

I don't think any of us here have the answers that some of you are looking for. And I'm starting to feel like this thread is taking a negative turn where the RCs here are having to defend why we still believe & why we still belong to the church. Not cool.

[Mama2Many4]

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

Firstly, given the huge amount of paperwork done and apparently the well known factor of it and that it was kept for decades - I think if we are going to claim the RCC had a cover up, we should at least gree it was the worst cover up job ever.

 

That said, the hierarchy factor is probably the main reason the RCC has become easy pickings for this issue. Other Christian faiths just do not seem to have it or as well organized. I firmly believe they absolutely do cover it up and it is easier for them to do so because they lack a hierarchy. I believe the same of schools and other institutions.

 

 

 

No. Absolutely not. Even the secular investigations have said there is not a correlations.

 

For several reasons:

 

Predators seek access and skilled at blending in. Simple as that.

 

Having homosexual inclinations does not mean they are child predators.

 

Not being inclined towards monogamy does not mean they are child predators. (One can be a total slut and still never harbor even the tiniest desire for a kid or even someone just younger.)

 

One can want a monogamous relationship and still have unhealthy desires. (men who abuse their wives, or predators who groom the very young and continue with them until they are older teens)

 

None of this has anything to do with a priestly vow of celibacy. No one, ever, without exception, has ever sexually abused a minor, of either gender, just because being chaste was too difficult for them. Ever.

 

Those children were abused for one reason:

 

A predator found a way to get close and abused that opportunity. If the predator had not been able to be a priest, he would have become a school teacher, or a scout leader, or married a woman with kids, or or or or.

 

I'm not offended by the question if it is honest.

 

Asked honestly, it shows a lack of knowledge about the church, the scandals, and predators. This can be discussed.

 

If the question is actually a cloaked judgement, well... Yeah.. That's not going to go far towards a discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think any of us here have the answers that some of you are looking for. And I'm starting to feel like this thread is taking a negative turn where the RCs here are having to defend why we still believe & why we still belong to the church. Not cool.

 

And again, :iagree:

[TranquilMind]

I don't have any problems because there haven't been any "cover-ups." There have only been poorly reported "news" stories about the s*xual abuses. Of course it's awful that those happened, but they weren't covered up in any way.

 

.

 

That simply isn't true. I can hardly fathom that you believe it did not happen, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

Here are some snippets from "Abuse Scandal Still echoes Through Catholic Church", an NPR report. And this is only in Massachusetts.

 

Article: There may have been an element of divine intervention, but what made 2002 different than other sex-abuse scandals were documents — thousands of them — proving a massive cover-up. In August 2001, The Boston Globe asked the Massachusetts Superior Court to release secret church documents about what church leaders knew and when they knew it. The judge ruled in favor of Globe, releasing a paper trail of responsibility that led all the way to Cardinal Bernard Law.

 

 

Even a Catholic Bishop Spokesman admits the coverup: From Wiki

 

In 2005, Dr. Kathleen McChesney of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the crisis is not yet over because thousands of victims across the country are still reporting the abuse. She said: "In 2004, at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States. Most of the alleged incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. What is over is the denial that this problem exists, and what is over is the reluctance of the Church to deal openly with the public about the nature and extent of the problem."

 

In 2010, the Associated Press reported that the number of allegations, victims, offending clergy dropped in 2009 to their lowest point since data started being collected in 2004. Dioceses and their insurers paid $104 million in settlement fees, attorney fees and other costs, down from $376 million in 2008.[

 

 

There would be no settlement fees at ALL, if the Church had dealt with this matter as it happened, instead of covering it up and dealing with it now, through no choice of its own, decades later. The Church is guilty for the decades-long cover-up, not for the actions of individuals, for which it would bear no responsibility at all had it merely exposed the issue as soon as it knew and handled it swiftly by removing the offenders instead of moving them around.

 

The Pope has been all over the world, attempting to deal with the cover-up.

 

From here: Pope Benedict XVI met with German victims of sexual abuse by priests and expressed "deep compassion and regret" at the suffering of those abused by members of the clergy, the Vatican said Friday.

 

 

The pope has had similar meetings on trips to the United States, Australia, Malta and Britain, all hit by the worldwide sex abuse scandal that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church over the past decades. In Germany, claims began to emerge in 2010.

 

Edited October 16, 2011 by TranquilMind

[Murphy101]

That simply isn't true. I can hardly fathom that you believe it did not happen, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

 

There would be no settlement fees at ALL, if the Church had dealt with this matter as it happened, instead of covering it up and dealing with it now, through no choice of its own, decades later. The Church is guilty for the decades-long cover-up, not for the actions of individuals, for which it would bear no responsibility at all had it merely exposed the issue as soon as it knew and handled it swiftly by removing the offenders instead of moving them around.

 

The Pope has been all over the world, attempting to deal with the cover-up.

 

None of that said cover-up.

 

They kept tons of clear documentation. What kind of idiot documents everything they are trying to cover up?

 

They had to go to court to get settlement offers made public. Well yeah. The main reason the parents signed was because they did NOT WANT IT KNOWN. That's wasn't cover up, it was part of a prior settlement.

 

They transferred the accused offender. What else could they do if the victims didn't want to come forward at the time? They could have de frocked the priest, but that would not have kept him from any child as he would still have been a free citizen. Make a public statement that he was a pedo? Ever hear of slander suits?

 

Like I said, if we are going to call it a cover up, I think it's the worst cover up ever.

[TranquilMind]

.

 

They transferred the accused offender. What else could they do if the victims didn't want to come forward at the time?

 

Wow, that is a very interesting perspective. You believe that it is not a cover-up because the victims begged to keep it hidden?

 

I don't think so. From report after report, they weren't believed at all. Even their own parents hushed them up in many cases, because they had this skewed perspective of priests as being above other mortals. In many cases, the priests threatened the children never to tell or 1) God would get them, because they were doing this "for God" or 2) something would happen to their parents or family if they did.

 

The cover up I refer to is not this on a micro scale, though this is reprehensible.

 

The cover-up is that the hierarchy got rid of offending priests not by removal from public contact or reporting them to the police for arrest, but by moving them to new populations of children in another parish or diocese, where they simply reoffended. Then the church would move them again. This is documented over and over all of the world.

[shinyhappypeople]

This quote by the wonderful Frank Sheed sums up my thoughts on this completely:

 

 

 

I don't expect perfection from our priests, Bishops, etc. Even the Pope is only infallible in very specific moral instances that don't come along all that often. I am a convert (swam the Tiber in 2009) and I think not being raised in the Church helps me keep the hierarchy in a different perspective than those who are cradle Catholics - I could be wrong about that though.

 

I really like that Frank Sheed quote.

 

Can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm almost totally ignorant about the details of RCism, but I always thought that anything the pope said or did was considered infallible. But if he's NOT always infallible, that helps with understanding my original question.

 

To all the Roman Catholics who are kind enough to put up with my uncomfortable questions: THANK YOU. I appreciate your patience with me. I already feel like I'm starting to understand better.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

Yes. There is no other denomination for a Roman Catholic. If I were to leave and attend a baptist church - that would be completely changing and leaving my faith.

 

No. You would still be a Christian. Baptists are Christians, who claim a connection through the centuries all the way back to John the Baptist (before the Apostles), much as Catholics claim a connection back to the apostles. You would leave your faith if you went to a Hindu temple or became a Buddhist.

 

Except Catholics say that other Christians are believers but "not in perfect communion with the Church" but in reality, they don't really believe this, as your statement illustrates.

[Caitilin]

The Pope is only considered to speak infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra," meaning "from the chair/throne," and he does so only extremely rarely. Like, what, twice in the last 200 plus years, I think. Am I describing this right, Martha/Parrothead/Ellie? :)

[VinNY]

I think this sex scandal which affected young boys and girls alike was like a cancer that no one was willing to cut out. In one case, I know the priest who is on record giving depositions to the DA saying that he repeatedly told his bishop's office that the pastor of his church was allowing a teenage boy in his room in the evenings. The young priest considered it highly inappropriate. Why didn't the Bishop and the pastor?. (It was uncovered that abuse did happen and this priests warning was ignored in his diocese). So here is one of my theories..takes one to know one..somethings have been whispered about that Bishop.

 

I get all the talk that both parents and clergy wanted to push things under the rug, I have heard good priests defending the lack of action blah blah. But finally I rejoined once and said, " In the 1700's Fr. Gerard Majella was falsely accused of sexual impropriety with a women in the confessional. His Bishop put him on kitchen duty and he was kept from his congregation. Of course the woman repented and he is now known as a great intercessor and Saint for women." So how come that Bishop reacted the way he did and our generation's didn't. Sex outside of marriage has always been a sin in the Catholic Church..that hasn't changed. Even if Bishops didn't understand the whole psychology of pedophilia etc, anyone caught not being able to uphold their vow of celibacy should have been put on kitchen duty and away from kids, people you name it. Maybe it is a cultural thing, something we all let happen so that it could breed. Well it is reckoning time and since it has come to light in our church, ,it has caused other institutions, parents, etc to examine how predators operate and make us all vigilant to protect the vulnerable etc .

[Soror]

We believe the RCC is The Church Chirst founded and that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. To say we believe that has happened(the Church is destroyed) means that I no longer believe in Christianity because I don't believe what Jesus stated in the Bible.

Edited October 16, 2011 by soror

[Soror]

The Pope is only considered to speak infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra," meaning "from the chair/throne," and he does so only extremely rarely. Like, what, twice in the last 200 plus years, I think. Am I describing this right, Martha/Parrothead/Ellie? :)

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

For further info-

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

[Caitilin]

No. You would still be a Christian. Baptists are Christians, who claim a connection through the centuries all the way back to John the Baptist (before the Apostles), much as Catholics claim a connection back to the apostles. You would leave your faith if you went to a Hindu temple or became a Buddhist.

 

Except Catholics say that other Christians are believers but "not in perfect communion with the Church" but in reality, they don't really believe this, as your statement illustrates.

 

But if one's faith rest on a *sacramental*understanding of what worship and communion are, one cannot just up and leave and join someone else's church which does not possess those sacramental elements or understanding. One can believe that, to use your example, Baptists are Christians, but they do not possess the sacraments which the RCC does. If the Real Presence of Christ in communion is central to your faith, then you cannot go join the baptists who do not profess or possess it.

[TranquilMind]

blessedwinter: Sexual abuse happens everywhere. I don't see how acting as if Catholic priests are perverts is any different than hearing a few stories in the media of homeschoolers who abused their children and asking how anyone could ever homeschool when it only leads to abuse.

 

People keep making this diversionary statement that is NOT on point. No one doubts that pedophiles exist everywhere.

 

But there is no central authority covering up the abuse of homeschooling parents and shipping them elsewhere to new pastures of victims either while presenting a happy face to society and the parents of the new crop of victims either. THAT is the point. Not the fact that "abusers are found in all organizations". Most decidedly yes, that is true and not in contention at all.

 

Cover-ups happen everywhere. We were a part of a Calvary Chapel before we converted that was in a MAJOR cover up about a teen in the church who was sexually abusing children in the church, we found out and immediately went to the pastor who refused to take any steps to stop it. We met with her family who was horrified that we were making her out to be some sort of "predator". They absolutely REFUSED to come forward about what had happened.

 

That was one person. That is reprehensible, and if the hierarchy of the Calvary Chapel were worldwide and very powerful and simply sent this teen to new positions all over, moving him or her again and again when he/she reoffended with new groups of victims, we'd have something close to an analogy here.

[TranquilMind]

VinNY;I think this sex scandal which affected young boys and girls alike was like a cancer that no one was willing to cut out.

 

That has never made sense to me. I had a bad growth on my forehead. The FIRST thing I wanted to do was cut it out, not let it infect the rest of the body.

 

In one case, I know the priest who is on record giving depositions to the DA saying that he repeatedly told his bishop's office that the pastor of his church was allowing a teenage boy in his room in the evenings. The young priest considered it highly inappropriate. Why didn't the Bishop and the pastor?. (It was uncovered that abuse did happen and this priests warning was ignored in his diocese).

 

Why? What the H3LL is wrong with people? Who could ignore THAT? I don't understand that at all!

 

So here is one of my theories..takes one to know one..somethings have been whispered about that Bishop.

 

I hope not.

 

I get all the talk that both parents and clergy wanted to push things under the rug, I have heard good priests defending the lack of action blah blah. But finally I rejoined once and said, " In the 1700's Fr. Gerard Majella was falsely accused of sexual impropriety with a women in the confessional. His Bishop put him on kitchen duty and he was kept from his congregation. Of course the woman repented and he is now known as a great intercessor and Saint for women." So how come that Bishop reacted the way he did and our generation's didn't.

 

Because that Bishop had some common sense, I guess. And wasn't under the sway of serving Mammon.

 

 

Sex outside of marriage has always been a sin in the Catholic Church..that hasn't changed. Even if Bishops didn't understand the whole psychology of pedophilia etc, anyone caught not being able to uphold their vow of celibacy should have been put on kitchen duty and away from kids, people you name it.

 

Yes.

[Audrey]

I think I've offended and I really didn't mean to :( I don't understand RCism (obviously).

 

I do acknowledge that sexual abuse happens everywhere. However, I wouldn't stay in a denomination that covered it up. So, that's what I can't wrap my brain around. I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.

 

You aren't the only one. I personally know more than a handful of people who left the Church after a local priest was exposed as a pedophile many years ago. His crime was swept under the rug and he was quickly and quietly transferred to another parish. He eventually retired to a home for retired priests and was cared for to the end by the Church. If he was ever admonished by the Church for his crimes, it was certainly never made public. He was a vile, loathsome creature and the local Archdiocese was publicly unfazed by him.

 

I don't blame anyone for leaving such a Church after experiencing that.

 

Times change, though, and there is currently a priest in place who publicly addressed the previous priest's criminality. Some people hated that he brought it up again, but many who had been the pedophile's victims expressed relief that SOMEONE in the Church finally acknowledged the egregious crime that was done to them. This didn't necessarily bring them back into the fold, but it has been a step toward healing for some of them.

 

I believe that the Church has been partly forced into public acknowledgement of the crimes of some of its leadership, and partly become awakened to the need for humility among its leadership. I believe that the cover-up era has ended in the Church, at least as far as sexual crimes is concerned. They have realized that they cannot hide behind their status any longer, and the hubris has begun to evaporate.

 

So, in that context, I can also understand why people choose the Church as their spiritual home.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Audrey

[Murphy101]

Wow, that is a very interesting perspective. You believe that it is not a cover-up because the victims begged to keep it hidden?

 

I don't think so. From report after report, they weren't believed at all. Even their own parents hushed them up in many cases, because they had this skewed perspective of priests as being above other mortals.

 

My apologies. For clarity. I am lumping the victim and the victim's parents into one term: victim. The child or the child's parents or both were not willing for whatever reason to go to authorities.

 

In many cases, the priests threatened the children never to tell or 1) God would get them, because they were doing this "for God" or 2) something would happen to their parents or family if they did.

 

Is that what parents said to keep the kid quiet? Or is that what the abusers said to keep the kid quiet? My understanding was that the abuser said such things to scare their victims into silence. I had not read that priests who had not abused the victim had said such things. How terrible for any of the above to have happened. :(

 

The cover-up is that the hierarchy got rid of offending priests not by removal from public contact or reporting them to the police for arrest, but by moving them to new populations of children in another parish or diocese, where they simply reoffended. Then the church would move them again. This is documented over and over all of the world.

 

Again, if victims refuse to speak to police, what could they have done?

You seem to think just calling the police would equal an arrest and it rarely happens that way.

How would you have expected the RCC to legally remove a free citizen from public contact?

[TranquilMind]

Caitilin;But if one's faith rest on a *sacramental*understanding of what worship and communion are, one cannot just up and leave and join someone else's church which does not possess those sacramental elements or understanding.

 

Yes, I understand that this is the belief.

[TranquilMind]

How would you have expected the RCC to legally remove a free citizen from public contact?

 

The RCC could have removed offending priests from contact with children. It always had authority to do that and failed miserably, over and over again, all over the world.

[Avila]

That was one person. That is reprehensible, and if the hierarchy of the Calvary Chapel were worldwide and very powerful and simply sent this teen to new positions all over, moving him or her again and again when he/she reoffended with new groups of victims, we'd have something close to an analogy here.

 

This is oversimplified though.

 

When the abuse was happening, it was not openly reported. People didn't talk openly about child abuse, incest or pedophiles. People were ashamed to be victims and even this who did report it did not want it publicized. The laws were also different. Abuse cases were just not taken seriously enough, either by the Church or by government authorities.

 

The bishops used their fallible human understanding to deal with a problem they just could not grasp. They didn't understand that offenders in these cases cannot be cured and will re-offend. We still have issues with that. Look at all the failed treatment programs out there. The offenders were treated like any other sinner. They were given the chance to repent, offered treatment, and reintegrated back into the Christian community. The bishops were offering forgiveness to people who quite obviously were beyond it, but nobody, least of all the Church, understood that AT the time.

 

Later, they made more fallible human decisions about trying to protect the Church from the scandal. They thought that protecting the Church was protecting everyone involved, which we now know is not the case. They did not intend the harm they caused, but that is little comfort to the many people who were harmed in a place they should have felt safe by people who were there to shepherd them.

 

Nobody, not Church or secular authorities, understood the impact this would have on the victims or the ingrained nature of the sickness in the perpetrators.

 

But none of that changes the nature of our faith. Imperfect people, poor witnesses and scandals have always been with us. The wheat and the weeds will remain together in the fold until the second coming. Just because some priests have sinned, some bishops have sinned and some popes have sinned does not change the purpose of the Church.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Asenik

[Murphy101]

I get all the talk that both parents and clergy wanted to push things under the rug, I have heard good priests defending the lack of action blah blah. But finally I rejoined once and said, " In the 1700's Fr. Gerard Majella was falsely accused of sexual impropriety with a women in the confessional. His Bishop put him on kitchen duty and he was kept from his congregation. Of course the woman repented and he is now known as a great intercessor and Saint for women." So how come that Bishop reacted the way he did and our generation's didn't. Sex outside of marriage has always been a sin in the Catholic Church..that hasn't changed. Even if Bishops didn't understand the whole psychology of pedophilia etc, anyone caught not being able to uphold their vow of celibacy should have been put on kitchen duty and away from kids, people you name it. Maybe it is a cultural thing, something we all let happen so that it could breed. Well it is reckoning time and since it has come to light in our church, ,it has caused other institutions, parents, etc to

examine how predators operate and make us all vigilant to protect the vulnerable etc .

 

I do think a large part of it is social. Back then a priest doing kitchen duty was not all that unusual. And it was understood that it was NOT acceptable to ask why he was given kitchen duty. It would have been presumed it was for some sort of spiritual mortification and that is private.

 

Now a days people tend to demand to do the job they are hired to do. For example, if that priest had refused kitchen duty - OMH. The public shame would have probably been worse than kitchen duty.

 

Today? If a priest refused to do the kitchen duty, I don't think anyone would care except for the devoted Catholics. And he could blather freely about why, whether true or not, while the devout bishop that he is refusing to obey, cannot release info from confession or make a public accusation (could be called slander) or do much more than possibly pray for a smiting?

 

But if one's faith rest on a *sacramental*understanding of what worship and communion are, one cannot just up and leave and join someone else's church which does not possess those sacramental elements or understanding. One can believe that, to use your example, Baptists are Christians, but they do not possess the sacraments which the RCC does. If the Real Presence of Christ in communion is central to your faith, then you cannot go join the baptists who do not profess or possess it.

 

Thank you. You said that much better than I would have been able to manage.

[Ellie]

Well said.

[Murphy101]

The RCC could have removed offending priests from contact with children. It always had authority to do that and failed miserably, over and over again, all over the world.

 

Um. Not really? Children are cotton picking everywhere, especially in Catholic circles.;)

 

Short of sending the offender to a dungeon, which everyone frowns on these days - there are going to be kids around. Kids go to kitchens. (I might even hazard the average catholic kid spends more time with a cook than a priest.)

 

The most they could have done without defrocking is reassign. Even at a monastery, there is contact with kids. (families often stay as they travel or while on retreat or volunteers who help with community needs, plus vocations learning for students considering that calling)

 

And defrocking is a big deal to Catholics, but it doesn't restrict his social activities in the least.

[ktgrok]

I think I've offended and I really didn't mean to :( I don't understand RCism (obviously).

 

I do acknowledge that sexual abuse happens everywhere. However, I wouldn't stay in a denomination that covered it up. So, that's what I can't wrap my brain around. I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.

 

RC don't see it as a denomination, it is THE church. Sometimes the church messes up, but it is still the church. Kind of like being a citizen of a country. There have been huge scandals or problems in the US government, but after say, Watergate, or the Tuskeegee Experiment, people didn't give up their citizenship and leave. They worked to change things, voted, etc. That is probably the best way to look at it.

 

Personally, I think that the authority should be better shared with the laity, the way it is in the Episcopal Church, which is still Apostolic, but that isn't the issue you are asking about.

[8circles]

Except Catholics say that other Christians are believers but "not in perfect communion with the Church" but in reality, they don't really believe this, as your statement illustrates.

 

This has become glaringly, smack-me-in-the-face clear since I've spent time here. It really is sadly undeniable & as much as I wish it weren't true.

[Ellesmere]

I really like that Frank Sheed quote.

 

Can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm almost totally ignorant about the details of RCism, but I always thought that anything the pope said or did was considered infallible. But if he's NOT always infallible, that helps with understanding my original question.

 

To all the Roman Catholics who are kind enough to put up with my uncomfortable questions: THANK YOU. I appreciate your patience with me. I already feel like I'm starting to understand better.

 

Our priest has been very upfront about all the uncomfortable topics as we learn about Catholicism. And I found some very kind Catholics here that helped and have been very patient with my questions, too. :)

 

This has been said before, but we left a church (non-denominational) that was covered in scandal and accusations of cover-ups. That's not why we left (it was more the attitude that they were the only true Christians in the world), and I actually sympathize with the leadership that had no choice but to let the matter drop for reasons too long to get into here. (I strongly disagreed with how they handled it, anyway, but I did at least see there was no sinister cover-up).

 

And I lost track of who answered you about infallibility but I think it was pretty much right. I used to think that it meant the Pope could say something false, but people had to believe it was infallible, but that is not at all the case. He can't declare the sunny day to be a rainy one and it doesn't mean that he never does anything wrong.

[Parrothead]

The Pope is only considered to speak infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra," meaning "from the chair/throne," and he does so only extremely rarely. Like, what, twice in the last 200 plus years, I think. Am I describing this right, Martha/Parrothead/Ellie? :)

The pope has only spoken from the chair twice. Both times to do with the BVM.

 

The RCC could have removed offending priests from contact with children. It always had authority to do that and failed miserably, over and over again, all over the world.

Yes, it could have. I totally agree that much more could have been done to prevent these persons from coming into contact with children.

 

But at this point in time, what would you have 1.18 billion people do? Walk away from their church because of the crimes of a small handful?

 

Yes, it was a horrific thing to happen to children anywhere. More so because it was done by people who were supposed to be better than that. Sadly humans have been fallen for thousands and thousands of years. Because of that pedophiles are found in all walks of life.

 

Yes, the way things were dealt with at the time were wrong. It was the way these things were dealt with at the time. I'm not saying it was right. Just saying how it was. The fault with the way things were handled lies with both the church and the parents. We are talking about mindsets from the 1940s into the 1970s. Things were done differently back then.

 

It has only been within the last 20 years that people understand that a woman raped did not "ask for it." The same mindset ruled back then. Any sign of a young man having sexual relations with another man whether welcome or not was a death sentence for the young man's reputation. He was labeled gay and from that moment on less than. He must have asked for it. He must have turned that holy man to his gayness. It was the victims fault in the eyes of society.

 

What parent wants that for his child? So yes, the parents in many cases were to blame as much as the bishops.

 

Again, what would you have us do? I won't walk away from Christ because of the heinous errors of man. Baby and the bathwater.

 

The church is more than an organization run by old white men. Fallen old white men who daily make mistakes and sin. But it is still an organization and the organization has the same tools as any organization both religious and secular. One of those tools are lawyers. At this point there won't be any more admittance of wrong doing than we have already. For the simple fact that the lawyers are involved. It is for the lawyers and the courts to decide what happens next.

 

Yes, there will be restitution.

 

Yes, there are measures in place that have never been in place before to protect the children. Not even lay people can talk to a child alone on church grounds.

 

Things are changing very slowly for the better.

 

Please tell me what it is you would like to see happen?

Edited October 16, 2011 by Parrothead

[Avila]

This has become glaringly, smack-me-in-the-face clear since I've spent time here. It really is sadly undeniable & as much as I wish it weren't true.

 

I am wondering why you haven't decided to stop reading threads about Catholicism and EO, since they upset you so much. You show up with negative things to say every time one of these threads come up, and I am sad for you that you read into them whatever bias you bring with you instead of what any of us are really saying. You don't seem to hear us, just what you want to hear. And that doesn't help any of us.

 

Just because we don't think being Catholic is interchangeable with being any other non-Catholic Christian group does NOT mean we think they are not Christians. I can prefer my own faith without denigrating yours, and I wish you could do the same.

[pageta]

Are all the leaders in various organizations you participate in perfect? Maybe they're overweight or have a temper or some other flaw. The Catholic church isn't perfect either. I expect them to deal with the problems when they find them, just as I would in any other organization. Just because some priests have had an issue with this doesn't mean ALL priests have an issue with this. Just because some people are allergic to peanuts doesn't mean EVERYBODY is allergic to peanuts. The Catholic church is a prominent organization so it has a lot of responsibility and its mistakes are widely broadcast. I've heard of various educators in non-Catholic schools that have gotten into trouble for molesting children. And maybe if it had been dealt with sooner or differently, the damage would have been less. But that doesn't mean I think all teachers are bad people and not to be respected. No organization is perfect, including the Catholic church.

[HeidiKC]

First of all, I don't think your question was offensive at all and is completely legit! I sometimes question it myself! There are many spiritual reasons, and I'm guessing most of the answers will focus on that. But I think part of it is also that maybe Catholics have a stronger identity as "Catholics" than other denominations do, such as "Methodists". Catholics don't generally switch denominations like some Protestants do. I guess because there isn't as much difference between Protestant denominations as there would be between a Catholic church and a Protestant church. So even though there is much I don't agree with in the Catholic church, it would feel so strange to leave and it's partly because it's almost like an ethnicity, if that makes sense. It's like a cultural identity.

 

I'm not saying I would absolutely never, ever leave the Catholic church no matter what, but I can't imagine doing it. Even if certain people in authority are behaving badly (our bishop was just criminally charged on Friday), that doesn't mean I think other leaders are doing the same. I guess I look at it as: I hope they weed out the baddies sooner rather than later, and I see some progress here. A few bad eggs aren't going to ruin it for me, because there is so much good.

 

I can see questioning why someone would choose to join the church with all this mess going on. But then again I guess that shows how strong their faith is. We know that God has the last word anyway!

Edited October 16, 2011 by HeidiKC

[WIS0320]

I really like that Frank Sheed quote.

 

Can you elaborate on the bolded? I'm almost totally ignorant about the details of RCism, but I always thought that anything the pope said or did was considered infallible. But if he's NOT always infallible, that helps with understanding my original question.

 

To all the Roman Catholics who are kind enough to put up with my uncomfortable questions: THANK YOU. I appreciate your patience with me. I already feel like I'm starting to understand better.

 

Sure, the Pope is only infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra which means "from the chair" and in this case it's Peter's chair, as the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. The Pope.

 

Here is a link that is brief:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

 

RC's absolutely believe that the Pope can and does sin. He is not perfect and we are not obligated to believe and accept every single thing a Pope says, does or writes as being absolute truth. With that said, a pope is the head of our Church and you better believe that I am going to pay attention to encyclicals, documents and letters that are written to the laity for direction of a healthy spiritual life.

[8circles]

I am wondering why you haven't decided to stop reading threads about Catholicism and EO, since they upset you so much. You show up with negative things to say every time one of these threads come up, and I am sad for you that your read into them whatever bias you brung with you instead of what any of us are really saying. You don't seem to hear us, just what you want to hear. And that doesn't help any of us.

 

Just because we don't think being Catholic is interchangeable with being any other non-Catholic Christian group does NOT mean we think they are not Christians. I can prefer my own faith without denigrating yours, and I wish you could do the same.

 

Unfortunately I hear very well. If you saw some of the PM's I've gotten from some of the posters here then it would be apparent to you as well.

 

I have never denigrated anyone else's faith. I started out here thinking we had common ground & pointing it out as best I could. I don't think Catholic & non-Catholic Christianity are interchangeable either.

 

Just to use a phrase right here on this thread, what do you think it means when someone "walks away from Christ"?

Edited October 16, 2011 by momoflaw

[Avila]

Unfortunately I hear very well. If you saw some of the PM's I've gotten from some of the posters here then it would be apparent to you as well.

 

I have never denigrated anyone else's faith. I don't think Catholic & non-Catholic Christianity are interchangeable either.

 

Just to use a phrase right here on this thread, what do you think it means when someone "walks away from Christ"?

 

If you are getting nasty PMs, you should be reporting them to the moderators and letting them take care of that. They ban people for that behavior. You shouldn't have to deal with that, and I am sorry you have had to.

 

I will have to go back and look at the context of your comment about walking away from Christ. That doesn't sound cut and dry to me without knowing the context.

[TravelingChris]

For all those Catholics who say this is in the past, what do you have to say about the arrest of Kansas City Bishop yesterday for delaying the report of a priest with child pornography on his computer for five months?

 

I am very happy he was arrested and I hope that officials start arresting any other Church official of any denomination that covers up child sexual abuse or child pornography.

[WIS0320]

Just to use a phrase right here on this thread, what do you think it means when someone "walks away from Christ"?

 

I would read that to mean that they are leaving the Real Presence of the Eucharist behind in a literal sense and not suggesting that they are abandoning Christ totally in the figurative sense.

 

Just so you know, I had a priest in the confessional stop me when I was going on about doubts early after I had converted. I was still unsure how Catholicism was the "right" way and all other religions were wrong. He quickly assured me that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and even other world religions have bold elements of truth. Our Church simply teaches that we have the fullness of truth not that other Christian denominations and other religions are void of truth.

 

If you choose to read/hear something other than that then I'm not sure what else there is to be said to convince you otherwise.

[8circles]

If you are getting nasty PMs, you should be reporting them to the moderators and letting them take care of that. They ban people for that behavior. You shouldn't have to deal with that, and I am sorry you have had to.

 

 

Thank you. Since I mentioned it & was informed that the moderators handle that sort of thing it hasn't happened again & I had no desire to keep such hateful words in my inbox.

[HeidiKC]

Offenders are sick people who look for people to victimize. They sought out the priesthood for the SAME reason other offenders became elementary school teachers, little league coaches, cub scout leaders, youth leaders, etc. They wanted easy access to children.

 

 

I don't know, but I sure hop this isn't true. I suspect it might be something more like these are men who have an attraction to children (or whatever you want to call it - I'm being polite), and they are disgusted with themselves or at least in denial. Maybe they hope that by joining the priesthood they'll immerse themselves in prayer, become super-holy and be able to withstand the temptations. And it doesn't work. But I kind of doubt they enter the priesthood with evil intentions.

[8circles]

I would read that to mean that they are leaving the Real Presence of the Eucharist behind in a literal sense and not suggesting that they are abandoning Christ totally in the figurative sense.

 

Just so you know, I had a priest in the confessional stop me when I was going on about doubts early after I had converted. I was still unsure how Catholicism was the "right" way and all other religions were wrong. He quickly assured me that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and even other world religions have bold elements of truth. Our Church simply teaches that we have the fullness of truth not that other Christian denominations and other religions are void of truth.

 

If you choose to read/hear something other than that then I'm not sure what else there is to be said to convince you otherwise.

 

There are Protestants who also believe in the "Real Presence". What am I reading that isn't there?

[Murphy101]

This has become glaringly, smack-me-in-the-face clear since I've spent time here. It really is sadly undeniable & as much as I wish it weren't true.

 

Unfortunately I hear very well. If you saw some of the PM's I've gotten from some of the posters here then it would be apparent to you as well.

 

I have never denigrated anyone else's faith. I don't think Catholic & non-Catholic Christianity are interchangeable either.

 

Just to use a phrase right here on this thread, what do you think it means when someone "walks away from Christ"?

 

I will try to explain, though I am not feeling optimistic about your acceptance of my explanation.

 

I converted to RCC because I believe The Church was founded by Christ. I do not believe the nondenominational church down the road was founded by Christ.

 

If The Church represents the Body of Christ, then MY walking away from The Church would indeed be viewed by ME as walking away from Christ.

 

It would be highly unlikely I would attend a church instead of The Church.

 

If I no longer believed in the RCC, then I personally would be unlikely to believe in the Body of Christ any longer and have no need for any church whatsoever at that point.

[TranquilMind]

Martha: If The Church represents the Body of Christ, then MY walking away from The Church would indeed be viewed by ME as walking away from Christ.

 

If, then. Ok.

 

It would be highly unlikely I would attend a church instead of The Church.

 

If I no longer believed in the RCC, then I personally would be unlikely to believe in the Body of Christ any longer and have no need for any church whatsoever at that point.

 

So the RCC = the Body of Christ? What about those millions of believers who are not in the RCC? They haven't abandoned God or Church...just a specific hierarchy.

[ElizaG]

That is reprehensible, and if the hierarchy of the Calvary Chapel were worldwide and very powerful and simply sent this teen to new positions all over, moving him or her again and again when he/she reoffended with new groups of victims, we'd have something close to an analogy here.

As with the abuse itself, the "turning a blind eye" or reassigning people happens in all religious groups, as well as in secular environments such as public schools. That does nothing at all to excuse it -- it's horrible and wrong, no matter who does it -- but it would be dishonest to imply that it's only been a problem among Catholic bishops.

 

We're hearing more about this now, after the Catholic scandals became public, as members of those other groups start to speak out. Hopefully this will lead to some changes in policies and attitudes across the board.

 

Rabbi's Odyssey Reflects Struggle on Sexual Abuse

Stop Baptist Predators

Reformation.com

Church Settles Sexual Abuse Against [Orthodox] Priest

Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature -- see p. 42 of the report (p. 52 of the PDF)

[Canadianmumof5]

At some point folks, you just have to pass the bean dip.

[simka2]

At some point folks, you just have to pass the bean dip.

I am looking for some really good greek recipes. Anyone have any? ;)

[Avila]

There are Protestants who also believe in the "Real Presence". What am I reading that isn't there?

 

Our understanding of the Eucharist encompasses more than just the Real Presence. One of the many reasons I believe in the Church is the issue of authority and who has it. Who gets to decide doctrine? Who decides issues of morality? Did Jesus leave all that up to us or did he leave us a Church to guide us? If I walk away from the Church, I have to walk away from my understanding of all that, which becomes more complicated than if I was changing from one Protestant group to another, because they generally agree on the nature of authority resting with the individual believer, guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit. That is a big difference. If I believe that Christ founded a Church and left me this authority, then rejecting that authority would be, for me, rejecting Jesus himself.

 

That doesn't mean that I think non-Catholic Christians are rejecting Jesus. They don't have that same understanding of authority that I have, and so they aren't walking away from what I am if I leave the Church. When we talk about what it feels like for a believing, practicing Catholic to leave the Church, that is what we are referring to. It is not a broader, general commentary on non-Catholic spirituality.

 

Momoflaw, I am sorry you feel so upset by these conversations. I would love to be able to have them without having people be offended. I think part of that starts with hearing people talk about their beliefs without projecting what they have said to our own. I can do better with that, and I am sorry to anyone I have inadvertently hurt.

[simka2]

 

That doesn't mean that I think non-Catholic Christians are rejecting Jesus. They don't have that same understanding of authority that I have, and so they aren't walking away from what I am if I leave the Church. When we talk about what it feels like for a believing, practicing Catholic to leave the Church, that is what we are referring to. It is not a broader, general commentary on non-Catholic spirituality.

 

 

You said this very well. Thanks!