Do you think Pope Benedict will step down?

[lionfamily1999]

See Dirty Ethel Rackman's post at the top of the page.

 

At that time there was a stigma attached to the victim of sexual abuse - any abuse, either gender, but the stigma was so much worse for males.

 

That said the parents of the children could even have demanded the case be dropped because of fear of the stigma attached. Their children were already deaf, then to have the possibility that they were "turned gay' added. At that time, you almost might as well have the boy sent away while hoping that the whole thing never comes out.

 

As for the Holy Father, he has not done any thing wrong.

 

It has already been said once in this thread. The newspaper has an agenda. If you read carefully over the last few years you'll notice a pattern of Christian/Catholic bashing in the press.

I didn't realize (when I wrote that) that the cases were from so long ago. Yes, I can understand parents wanting to protect their children from that publicity.

 

It's a horrible situation, why would people want to make it worse?

[chiguirre]

ETA It states at the bottom of the article that Arch Bishop Weakland (who was corresponding with the Vatican about Murphy) admitted to paying $450k to keep secret abuse allegations about himself.

 

 

To be fair to Rembert Weakland, he wasn't accused of abusing children. He admitted to paying hush money to an adult male ex-lover who threatened to out him.

[LauraGB]

To be fair to Rembert Weakland, he wasn't accused of abusing children. He admitted to paying hush money to an adult male ex-lover who threatened to out him.

 

Thank you for clarifying this. The article I read wasn't clear (although, it was inserted in a way to be "leading").

[asta]

I wrote it in my post, but I think it bears repeating:

 

The pope in question in 1996 was John Paul II. It was his responsibility to take care of all matters concerning the defrocking of priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals.

 

In 1996, the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was only a cardinal (Cardinal Ratzinger). It was not within his purview to defrock anyone.

 

As in other religions, there is a chain of command within the Catholic Church, and it is followed. Nothing big happens without approval from above (eg: gets the stamp from the pope's ring). If people were moved around on a chessboard instead of being booted, it is because he decided that is how it should be dealt with.

 

Pope John Paul II 16 October 1978 - 2 April 2005

Pope John Paul I 26 August 1978 - 28 September 1978

Pope Paul VI 21 June 1963 - 6 August 1978

 

I think we can safely say that Pope Benedict didn't have squat to do with the cases currently in the press in regards to having the power to stop anything.

 

 

asta

[elizabeth]

accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

 

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

 

Pope Benedict was directly responsible for not alerting civilian authorities or when he was the head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who decide whether accused priests should be defrocked.

I am not able to understand the position that anyone but the former Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II are responsible for their failure of leadership and frankly cowardice over this issue.

[asta]

accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

 

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

 

Pope Benedict was directly responsible for not alerting civilian authorities or when he was the head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who decide whether accused priests should be defrocked.

I am not able to understand the position that anyone but the former Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II are responsible for their failure of leadership and frankly cowardice over this issue.

 

Pope Benedict was never head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

Cardinal Ratzinger was.

 

I know it sounds snitty and like I'm splitting hairs, but in the Catholic hierarchy, it is a very important distinction.

 

Not a single one of us knows what Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not say to Pope JPII in regards to any of those cases; JP took his knowledge to his death. All we know is that, ultimately, it was JP's responsibility to defrock those priests, and that did not happen. For all any of us know, the DotF did recommend defrocking.

 

I have seen absolutely no evidence of kindness or tolerance towards pedophiles or insubordinates by Pope Benedict. I have a very hard time believing that the final judgement of any guilty parties stopped at his door.

 

He may be a holy man, and he may view a man's final judgement to be with God, but by all appearances and public actions, he does not tolerate poor or illegal behavior.

 

 

a

[Audrey]

It was not just the Catholic Church that had this attitude, but it was society, in general. Children were rarely believed, and, if they were, they were blamed for somehow initiating the relationship. How many mothers did not believe their daughters when they were abused by the live-in boyfriend? This still goes on.

 

My faith life was scarred by abusive priests - not personally abused, but knew people who were, but mostly by the bishops who swept it under the rug and transferred the priests where they could do more harm. Many will say that they were following the advice of psychiatrists and such, but you would think that after they would get a clue that the recidivism rate was extremely high.

 

Our diocese was hit badly by this and a great deal of effort has been put into healing and open-ness.

 

 

:iagree: Same thing in my little town here. There was a molesting priest about 35 years ago. No one will ever get over it. It has scarred everyone and tainted the name of our town forever. Of course it was covered up by transferring the pedophile out to another town. I'm sure that town thanks the archbishop for that little move. :glare:

 

For 25 years there was a string of short-term priests here, none of whom would ever mention the pedophile or what happened. Finally, one priest did address the congregation on the matter. He stayed for almost 8 years and in this non-christian's eyes made himself a true example of honesty, integrity and faith in the community. Unfortunately, he wasn't the "right kind" of priest (he was from Congo, and not only did he have a funny accent in English, he didn't speak the right kind of French) and people made fun of him for it.

 

I wish that all priests were like our Congolese priest because above all else, he was a decent human being who wasn't afraid to stand up for what was right.

[asta]

The BBC News service has another perspective this morning.

 

 

a

[Kate CA]

Are you aware that Catholic priests have NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? There are just greater numbers of Catholic priests so there are numerically more "bad apples". Additionally, the centralized nature of the Church makes it much easier to track the problem.

 

The only thing that article states about "other clergy" is this:

 

"No evidence has been published at this time that states that this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions."

 

"No evidence" was given at all regarding "other religious traditions." There wasn't even a link to any abuse cases. :confused: They follow up with numbers of abusive school teachers. How does this at all correlate with the number of abusive Catholic priests? Your statement that there is "...NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths..." cannot be corroborated by this article. It may or may not be true, but this article doesn't give any evidence to support your statement.

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

The reason there is so much publicity surrounding the tiny fraction of "bad apple" Catholic priests is because of anti-Catholicism. Many journalists and editors are ex-Catholics and they often have a grudge against the Church.

 

I think there is a general anti-Christian bias in the media period. The fact there is a lot of publicity though is because it is well-deserved. This kind of abuse was swept under the rug for many years and it is wrong across the board. If a Protestant denomination were doing the same thing there would be a hue and cry about it too--as there should be. Sin is sin and no matter what your title, if you are committing acts of such perversion or covering them up and you are in a position of spiritual leadership, you had better have your flock taken away from you. God will not be mocked.

 

He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."

Luke 17:1-2

 

ETA: I am not saying that I think the current Pope is guilty or not - I have no idea. I am stating in general terms. FYI.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Kate CA

[asta]

Re: Other clergy et al.

 

Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches (Christian Science Monitor)

Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.

 

[...]

 

James Cobble, executive director of CMR, who oversees the survey, says the data show that child sex-abuse happens broadly across all denominations– and that clergy aren't the major offenders.

 

"The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," he says.

 

Of the 350,000 churches in the US, 19,500 – 5 percent – are Roman Catholic. Catholic churches represent a slightly smaller minority of churches in the CMR surveys which aren't scientifically random, but "representative" demographic samples of churches, Dr. Cobble explains.

 

Since 1993, on average about 1 percent of the surveyed churches reported abuse allegations annually. That means on average, about 3,500 allegations annually, or nearly 70 per among the predominantly Protestant group, Cobble says.

 

[...]

 

Volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers. Perhaps more startling, children at churches are accused of sexual abuse as often as are clergy and staff. In 1999, for example, 42 percent of alleged child abusers were volunteers – about 25 percent were paid staff members (including clergy) and 25 percent were other children.

 

[...]

 

Fear of lawsuits sparked new rules

But the shift to "trust but verify" – impelled to a degree by current headlines – has been ongoing since a conference in Chicago in November 1992 when more than 100 denominational leaders met for the first time to discuss how to deal with child sex abuse. About that time, insurance companies were dropping coverage of churches without screening policies.

 

"What drove leaders to begin to respond to this issue was not the welfare of children," Cobble says. "It was fear of large, costly lawsuits."

 

Books: ‘Tempest in the Temple’ looks at Jewish leaders and child sex scandals

 

For decades, while victims of child sex abuse fought Roman Catholic bishops in New England, dozens more in Brooklyn, N.Y., met a wall of resistance from District Attorney Charles “Joe†Hynes and the informal council of Orthodox Jewish leaders who assured Hynes’ long tenure in office. Jewish victims feared reprisals against their families in Orthodox communities even after five non-Jews, beginning with an Italian-American boy, persuaded a grand jury to indict a charming yeshiva administrator, child therapist, and rabbi, Avrohom Mondrowitz.

 

The New York Times gave the story a few lines in 1984, when Mondrowitz, charged with sex crimes against children, disappeared. The Times reported nothing further for 23 years. This book skillfully gathers the voices of those who struggled against official silence to speak truth and demand justice in this case and others.

 

And then there is the Boy Scouts. Pick a news organization, any news organization, and just google "Boy Scouts Abuse". Here is a bit from the Associated Press:

The Boy Scouts of America has long kept an extensive archive of secret documents that chronicle the sexual abuse of young boys by Scout leaders over the years.

 

The "perversion files," a nickname the Boy Scouts are said to have used for the documents, have rarely been seen by the public, but that could all change in the coming weeks in an Oregon courtroom.

 

The lawyer for a man who was molested in the 1980s by a Scout leader has obtained about 1,000 Boy Scouts sex files and is expected to release some of them at a trial that began Wednesday. The lawyer says the files show how the Boy Scouts have covered up abuse for decades.

 

It is convenient to think this was all a bunch of nasty priests, but it wasn't. It was a bunch of sick, sick people.

 

 

asta

 

 

(there is also this disturbing blog from Church of God in Christ)

[Nestof3]

Absolutely not. There's no reason that he should. He was not culpable in any way and is not trying to cover up anything now.

 

How can you know that?

[asta]

How can you know that?

 

{not Ellie}

 

I'm a sucker for punishment.

 

To a Catholic, the Pope is the voice of God on Earth.

 

If a Catholic believes in the tenets of Catholicism (which, obviously, include believing that the Pope is God's chosen messenger of his word on earth), and the Pope says that he did not have anything to do with a certain situation, then, by God, he didn't have anything to do with a certain situation.

 

And this isn't even taking the whole ex cathedra thing into account (papal infallibility) - this is just your standard Catholic's view of el Papa: your dad doesn't lie to you. And to take it a step further, the man that God has chosen to lead the Church ("You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)) will not be one who tries to actively destroy it.

 

It's all about dogma. For someone who doesn't believe in the dogma of the RCC, all of what I've written most likely sounds like either a bunch of hooey or some fanatical cult. For someone who does believe in it, it makes complete sense, and what other denominations believe sounds rather strange.

 

I think theology is fascinating.

 

 

a

[ktog29]

{not Ellie}

 

To a Catholic, the Pope is the voice of God on Earth.

 

If a Catholic believes in the tenets of Catholicism (which, obviously, include believing that the Pope is God's chosen messenger of his word on earth), and the Pope says that he did not have anything to do with a certain situation, then, by God, he didn't have anything to do with a certain situation.

 

And this isn't even taking the whole ex cathedra thing into account (papal infallibility) - this is just your standard Catholic's view of el Papa: your dad doesn't lie to you. And to take it a step further, the man that God has chosen to lead the Church ("You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)) will not be one who tries to actively destroy it.

 

It's all about dogma. For someone who doesn't believe in the dogma of the RCC, all of what I've written most likely sounds like either a bunch of hooey or some fanatical cult. For someone who does believe in it, it makes complete sense, and what other denominations believe sounds rather strange.

 

 

 

 

a

 

:iagree:

[Xuzi]

{not Ellie}

 

I'm a sucker for punishment.

 

To a Catholic, the Pope is the voice of God on Earth.

 

If a Catholic believes in the tenets of Catholicism (which, obviously, include believing that the Pope is God's chosen messenger of his word on earth), and the Pope says that he did not have anything to do with a certain situation, then, by God, he didn't have anything to do with a certain situation.

 

And this isn't even taking the whole ex cathedra thing into account (papal infallibility) - this is just your standard Catholic's view of el Papa: your dad doesn't lie to you. And to take it a step further, the man that God has chosen to lead the Church ("You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)) will not be one who tries to actively destroy it.

 

It's all about dogma. For someone who doesn't believe in the dogma of the RCC, all of what I've written most likely sounds like either a bunch of hooey or some fanatical cult. For someone who does believe in it, it makes complete sense, and what other denominations believe sounds rather strange.

 

I think theology is fascinating.

 

 

a

As a member of the LDS (Mormon) faith, I deffinatley hear you on this. We've had our own bit of scandal in the news (but deserved and undeserved) and what seems so strange and "brainwashed" and "not-thinking-for-themselves-ish" to outsiders, is just a part of our walk of faith. We DO think for ourselves, and our thinking has lead us to following this path, and this is what following the path entails. The same could be said for Catholics and their devotion to their faith and to the Pope in the midst of such disgusting accusations (both true and false).

 

My heart really goes out to all the innocent Catholics in the world who are having to bare the stigma of these sick Priests and the individual leaders in the church who failed at dealing with it. And of course my heart also goes out to the victims of these sick Priests. Abuse is a horrible thing, no matter who is doing the abuse.

[Kate CA]

Now these links (sadly) prove something.

 

It is convenient to think this was all a bunch of nasty priests, but it wasn't. It was a bunch of sick, sick people.

 

I am not sure this statement is directed at me, but just in case it is, I never said anything along these lines. It isn't "convenient" at all. It is an appalling breech of trust and should be punished with the severest available manner--no matter what religious tradition it comes from.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Are you aware that Catholic priests have NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? There are just greater numbers of Catholic priests so there are numerically more "bad apples". Additionally, the centralized nature of the Church makes it much easier to track the problem.

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

The reason there is so much publicity surrounding the tiny fraction of "bad apple" Catholic priests is because of anti-Catholicism. Many journalists and editors are ex-Catholics and they often have a grudge against the Church.

 

This is a very complex and sad issue. I agree that pedophiles are in every walk of life.

 

It is, however, your last comment I want to address. While you may be right that certain people have an anti-Catholic bias or agenda, I think the reason for the outrage against the Catholic Church over the pedophile priests issue stems from the fact that it is a very large religious organization and one that sets itself apart as the moral authority on all things from capitol punishment to birth control. When an organization that claims to have such moral authority shows a lack of morals, it is news.

 

It makes news when police officers steal. It is makes news when doctors are caught drug dealing. The irony of the very public moral position juxtaposed with the crime that makes (some) people sit up and take notice (attack, even). Papers aren't sold by pointing out that criminals do crime. People want to read about how the mighty have fallen, how the upstanding have slipped, how the pure have been shown to be soiled.

 

I, personally, expect more from the churches. I expect pastors not to steal, priests to be chaste, rabbi's not to cheat - especially after exhorting their congregations regarding these exact things according to God's word. I forget that these men are, after all, just men. I expect that since they claim to speak to and for the one true god that their lives would align more closely with what they claim that god wants for everyone else. They are, after all *leaders of the faith* and should be held to a higher standard.

 

My opinion only.

[MariannNOVA]

Are you aware that Catholic priests have NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? There are just greater numbers of Catholic priests so there are numerically more "bad apples". Additionally, the centralized nature of the Church makes it much easier to track the problem.

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

The reason there is so much publicity surrounding the tiny fraction of "bad apple" Catholic priests is because of anti-Catholicism. Many journalists and editors are ex-Catholics and they often have a grudge against the Church.

 

I wrote it in my post, but I think it bears repeating:

 

The pope in question in 1996 was John Paul II. It was his responsibility to take care of all matters concerning the defrocking of priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals.

 

In 1996, the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was only a cardinal (Cardinal Ratzinger). It was not within his purview to defrock anyone.

 

As in other religions, there is a chain of command within the Catholic Church, and it is followed. Nothing big happens without approval from above (eg: gets the stamp from the pope's ring). If people were moved around on a chessboard instead of being booted, it is because he decided that is how it should be dealt with.

 

Pope John Paul II 16 October 1978 - 2 April 2005

Pope John Paul I 26 August 1978 - 28 September 1978

Pope Paul VI 21 June 1963 - 6 August 1978

 

I think we can safely say that Pope Benedict didn't have squat to do with the cases currently in the press in regards to having the power to stop anything.

 

 

asta

 

Pope Benedict was never head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

Cardinal Ratzinger was.

 

I know it sounds snitty and like I'm splitting hairs, but in the Catholic hierarchy, it is a very important distinction.

 

Not a single one of us knows what Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not say to Pope JPII in regards to any of those cases; JP took his knowledge to his death. All we know is that, ultimately, it was JP's responsibility to defrock those priests, and that did not happen. For all any of us know, the DotF did recommend defrocking.

 

I have seen absolutely no evidence of kindness or tolerance towards pedophiles or insubordinates by Pope Benedict. I have a very hard time believing that the final judgement of any guilty parties stopped at his door.

 

He may be a holy man, and he may view a man's final judgement to be with God, but by all appearances and public actions, he does not tolerate poor or illegal behavior.

 

 

a

 

Thank you both for taking the time to post this information. DH and I were talking about this matter earlier -- the entire topic (everywhere - not only in the Catholic Church) is unfathomably horrifying. And, no, I do not think the Pope should step down.

Edited March 27, 2010 by MariannNOVA
answer original post

[Renee in NC]

I'd rather American bishops who seem unable to properly do their jobs step down than the Pope.

 

Lord, hear our prayers.

[elizabeth]

{not Ellie}

 

I'm a sucker for punishment.

 

To a Catholic, the Pope is the voice of God on Earth.

 

If a Catholic believes in the tenets of Catholicism (which, obviously, include believing that the Pope is God's chosen messenger of his word on earth), and the Pope says that he did not have anything to do with a certain situation, then, by God, he didn't have anything to do with a certain situation.

 

And this isn't even taking the whole ex cathedra thing into account (papal infallibility) - this is just your standard Catholic's view of el Papa: your dad doesn't lie to you. And to take it a step further, the man that God has chosen to lead the Church ("You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)) will not be one who tries to actively destroy it.

 

It's all about dogma. For someone who doesn't believe in the dogma of the RCC, all of what I've written most likely sounds like either a bunch of hooey or some fanatical cult. For someone who does believe in it, it makes complete sense, and what other denominations believe sounds rather strange.

 

I think theology is fascinating.

 

 

a

 

Lest anyone be confused as many here are Protestant , the concept of ex cathedra "from the chair" is used rarely and it is not assumed by informed Catholics that the Pope always speaks from a place of infallibility. The word is circumscribed by the limiting categories of passive or active infallibility. This notion is distorted often by those who wish to show that the Catholic church is not christian at worst and primarily extra biblical at least. Here is a link with the nuances of the Catholic teaching on this issue.

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

[cathmom]

Lord, hear our prayers.

 

Amen! Thank God we got a new bishop here finally!

[HRAAB]

{not Ellie}

 

I'm a sucker for punishment.

 

To a Catholic, the Pope is the voice of God on Earth.

 

If a Catholic believes in the tenets of Catholicism (which, obviously, include believing that the Pope is God's chosen messenger of his word on earth), and the Pope says that he did not have anything to do with a certain situation, then, by God, he didn't have anything to do with a certain situation.

 

And this isn't even taking the whole ex cathedra thing into account (papal infallibility) - this is just your standard Catholic's view of el Papa: your dad doesn't lie to you. And to take it a step further, the man that God has chosen to lead the Church ("You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18)) will not be one who tries to actively destroy it.

 

It's all about dogma. For someone who doesn't believe in the dogma of the RCC, all of what I've written most likely sounds like either a bunch of hooey or some fanatical cult. For someone who does believe in it, it makes complete sense, and what other denominations believe sounds rather strange.

 

I think theology is fascinating.

 

 

a

 

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. (I have attended the Catholic Church my entire life, and although I'm pretty much outside of Christianity, I still attend with my family and have a pretty good feel for the average Catholic I see at church.) There are the very conservative Catholics that hang on absolutely every word out of the Pope's mouth. For most Catholics I know today, and I know quite a few and excepting the very conservative ones, they would not necessarily believe it just because the Pope said it.

 

This is, I think, a more recent attitude in the church - in last few decades. Whether right or wrong, the hierarchy of the church has been brought down a notch or two. I also think this is another reason that people are beginning to come forward and make these accusations. I remember well being in Catholic schools in the 60's (and my dh) and no-one EVER questioned a priest. If Father said it, that's the way it was. My dh has said had he ever questioned or accused a priest of something wrong, he would have been in big trouble with his parents for doing so. My dad was a convert and perhaps because of his Protestant background, didn't view priests so much in this way.

 

That is not the attitude I see now among most Catholics (moderate, middle of the road). They openly question priests, and I'm fairly sure, while maybe some wouldn't publicly, would question the Pope, too.

 

And this is putting aside the Pope speaking from the position of 'Ex Cathedra'. I can only think of this being used one time in pronouncing the dogma of the Blessed Mother. I could easily be wrong on that, though.

 

Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth.

[asta]

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. (I have attended the Catholic Church my entire life, and although I'm pretty much outside of Christianity, I still attend with my family and have a pretty good feel for the average Catholic I see at church.) There are the very conservative Catholics that hang on absolutely every word out of the Pope's mouth. For most Catholics I know today, and I know quite a few and excepting the very conservative ones, they would not necessarily believe it just because the Pope said it.

 

This is, I think, a more recent attitude in the church - in last few decades. Whether right or wrong, the hierarchy of the church has been brought down a notch or two. I also think this is another reason that people are beginning to come forward and make these accusations. I remember well being in Catholic schools in the 60's (and my dh) and no-one EVER questioned a priest. If Father said it, that's the way it was. My dh has said had he ever questioned or accused a priest of something wrong, he would have been in big trouble with his parents for doing so. My dad was a convert and perhaps because of his Protestant background, didn't view priests so much in this way.

 

That is not the attitude I see now among most Catholics (moderate, middle of the road). They openly question priests, and I'm fairly sure, while maybe some wouldn't publicly, would question the Pope, too.

 

And this is putting aside the Pope speaking from the position of 'Ex Cathedra'. I can only think of this being used one time in pronouncing the dogma of the Blessed Mother. I could easily be wrong on that, though.

 

Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth.

 

Out of curiosity, are you in the United States, or somewhere else?

 

 

a

[HRAAB]

Out of curiosity, are you in the United States, or somewhere else?

 

 

a

 

Right after I posted that, I considered that this might be a geographic issue. I am in the US, in the west.

[asta]

Right after I posted that, I considered that this might be a geographic issue. I am in the US, in the west.

 

I think you may be right.

 

 

a

[ChrisB]

Here's a straightforward, bare-bones treatment of this issue:

 

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=

 

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

 

• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).

• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge -- that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation -- is proven utterly false.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.

To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.

The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why.

Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.

15 May 1974

Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.

12 September 1974

Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.

9 July 1980

Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.

17 July 1996

More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession -- a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.

It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.

10 September 1996

Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.

24 March 1997

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.

14 May 1997

Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.

Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.

12 January 1998

Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.

6 April 1998

Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.

13 May 1998

The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.

30 May 1998

Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.

19 August 1998

Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry -- a quicker option.

21 August 1998

Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral

-- Father Raymond J. de Souza is a chaplain at Queen's University in Ontario.

[Ellie]

How can you know that?

How can you know otherwise?

 

There is *at least* as much documentation by the Church on what happened as there has been reported by the NY Times and other secular, agenda-motivated media. I can believe the Church much more easily than the NY Times.

[elizabeth]

How can you know otherwise?

 

There is *at least* as much documentation by the Church on what happened as there has been reported by the NY Times and other secular, agenda-motivated media. I can believe the Church much more easily than the NY Times.

 

And the fact that I believe the opposite in terms of credibility is interesting. I have perused the documents from the Church when discovery through litigation has permitted them to be read by a layperson . The documents in the NY Times article are linked here: http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1 . To arrive at any conclusion one way or another without reading the documents written by the parties is to fail to address evidence. Mixing politics with theology in order to substantiate or deny a point of evidence is for me, intellectually dishonest.

[HRAAB]

And the fact that I believe the opposite in terms of credibility is interesting. I have perused the documents from the Church when discovery through litigation has permitted them to be read by a layperson . The documents in the NY Times article are linked here: http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1 . To arrive at any conclusion one way or another without reading the documents written by the parties is to fail to address evidence. Mixing politics with theology in order to substantiate or deny a point of evidence is for me, intellectually dishonest.

 

Thank you for the link.

[Renee in NC]

And the fact that I believe the opposite in terms of credibility is interesting. I have perused the documents from the Church when discovery through litigation has permitted them to be read by a layperson . The documents in the NY Times article are linked here: http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1 . To arrive at any conclusion one way or another without reading the documents written by the parties is to fail to address evidence. Mixing politics with theology in order to substantiate or deny a point of evidence is for me, intellectually dishonest.

 

I read the evidence and posted my thoughts and summaries yesterday. I don't come to the same conclusion as the NY Times. I don't know *why* it wasn't dealt with in 1974 - that is an error that needs to be addressed (and I think it has been since Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Office of the Congregation of Faith - bishops no longer have the option of handling things "in house.") I think Bishop Weakland should have started the canonical trial process in 1974!

 

However, to blame Pope Benedict for something that happened almost 36 years ago that involved someone who died almost 14 years ago is suspect. Especially considering that no one actually stopped the process - Archbishop Bertrone did not order them to stop the trial process, but rather urged them to handle it a different way (the end result would have been the same either way.)

 

This priest was not shipped off to another parish - he actually was never assigned anywhere ever again.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/ A remarkable documentary about one family and their struggle to deal with the aftermath of their boys molestation by the parish priest. There is no excuse whatsoever be it" velvet" seminaries, failure to be forthcoming about the abuse essentially blaming the victims nor the coup de grace , a defense that the statute of limitations has passed, so get over it already...As to Pope Benedict's culpability in the present case likely not so , it is the Bishop who had primary responsiblity to deal with the situation. In the Des Moines Diocese we had a case regarding an allegation against our parish priest. Our Bishop Joseph Charron had him out on his ear in days . Many posts here are missing the point that until recently, due to the plethora of lawsuits , complaints were handled "in house." No reports to legal authorities in Iowa until 1988. These predators could have been stopped but the policy was treatment and move them around. It is a disgrace to all the wonderful holy priests who live up to their vows that these men were simply permitted to have a little treatment and move on for fresh victims. Institutional responsibility is right and just because they could not have gotten away with it for so long without the support of those who had the power to say enough.

Edited March 28, 2010 by elizabeth
typo

[Renee in NC]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/ A remarkable documentary about one family and their struggle to deal with the aftermath of their boys molestation by the parish priest. There is no excuse whatsoever be it" velvet" seminaries, failure to be forthcoming about the abuse essentially blaming the victims nor the coup de grace , a defense that the statute of limitations has passed, so get over it already...As to Pope Benedict's culpability in the present case likely not so , it is the Bishop who had primary responsiblity to deal with the situation. In the Des Moines Diocese we had a case regarding an allegation against our parish priest. Our Bishop Joseph Charron had him out on his ear in days . Many posts here are missing the point that until recently, due to the plethora of lawsuits , complaints were handled "in house." No reports to legal authorities in Iowa until 1988. These predators could have been stopped but the policy was treatment and move them around. It is a disgrace to all the wonderful holy priests who live up to their vows that these men were simply permitted to have a little treatment and move on for fresh victims. Institutional responsibility is right and just because they could not have gotten away with it for so long without the support of those who had the power to say enough.

 

I absolutely agree that things were handled very, very badly by bishops in the past. I am not missing the point - I *know* that priests were given a little "treatment" and moved around without notifiying civil authorities. Now (20-30 years later) we know that "treatment" doesn't generally help, that offenders almost are certainly going to offend again, and we have mandatory reporting and civil authorities who are actually going to pursue it!

 

What irritates me is that it keeps getting brought up again and again and treated as if the Catholic Church was an anamoly. It wasn't. This was the normal way of handling sex abuse cases all over the place! Civil authorities didn't believe children, and families did not want their children's victimnization known (as if it were somehow their fault.) It happened in all kinds of institutions - Catholic parishes, Protestant churches, Boy and Girl Scouts, public schools, private schools - no one was immune. It was hushed up, people were moved, civil authorities declined to press charges, and families wanted it all just to go away.

 

Thankfully our children do not live in that world! Most institutions have changed their policies about children and people with children. Scouts have a "two deep" policy. The Church requires all people who work with children to go through training that helps them to root out abuse (and they also have policies about being alone with anyone - my sister in law had to meet at B & N with a teen girl who wanted to speak to her privately due to the policies.) Schools also have policies, background checks, etc. We talk to our children about these things. We *believe* our children!

 

I do think there is an institutional responsibility, but you are getting to the point where these priests are dead, the bishops are dead and people are still calling for blood. The Church has paid out millions and millions. Priests are and have been removed. Priests are being civilly held responsible as well. Yet here is the NY Times digging up a case from 30 years ago where there is no one left to hold responsible.

 

Cardinal Ratzinger was the one who worked hard to root out these priests. He is the one who made it policy that all allegations now have to be handled by Rome as opposed to the local Bishop (I imagine because there is a huge conflict of interest there.) Now he is being blamed?

 

The one thing I do want to know is whether it is policy to remove an accused priest from his parish while the charges are investigated. I truly hope so.

[kalanamak]

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

 

The above group is self-selecting for being around children. I wonder what the rates of clergy abuse is in clergy who choose to work extensively with children. That would be a fairer comparison.

 

As for journalists who are ex-Catholic and therefore have bias against the church, I find this a leap. Perhaps they do more articles on the Catholic church because their editor finds it useful to use someone who is familiar with the basics of the Church. I know almost nothing about it. If I were a journalist, I would certainly tell my editor "try so and so. He is familiar with X", no matter the topic. At work, I know a "lapsed" social worker, who, while not being a believer, has great sympathy for the church, and tends to defend it while explaining things. Ex should not be lumped with Anti automatically.

 

I know hindsight is 20/20, but geez, this was breaking the law. One wishes the police had been called. It may be late now, but that is what should be done now. Some public humiliating and charges pressed might hold back some percentage of molesters, and raise public awareness, and let the victims know we, as a society, don't condone what happened to them. Unfortunately, once millions and millions become involved because of suits, everything is immediately clouded.

[Nestof3]

How can you know otherwise?

 

There is *at least* as much documentation by the Church on what happened as there has been reported by the NY Times and other secular, agenda-motivated media. I can believe the Church much more easily than the NY Times.

 

I'm not proclaiming to know either way. Obviously, we don't know everything, so I just keep it at that. How can we possibly know about the Pope's inside knowledge and such? We don't even live in the same country, much less the same house. I'm assuming more info will be released as time goes by. My stance would be the same regarding a Protestant pastor or any other person.

 

I just realize by reading this post that we Protestants think very different because we believe all men are fallible.

[Avila]

I just realize by reading this post that we Protestants think very different because we believe all men are fallible.

 

Not to pick on you, but gee, so do Catholics. I think you misunderstand what Catholics mean by Infallibility. Infallibility does NOT mean that the Pope doesn't make mistakes on a personal level. Infallibility is a gift, part of the promise in the Bible that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Infallbility only comes into play to protect the Church and the Pope acting on behalf of the Church in very specific ways, not in his personal life or for random events. It isn't that the Pope has any special or magical powers but that the Holy Spirit is protecting him in a very special way -- not even for his behalf but on behalf of the Church. Of course men make mistakes. So do Popes in their personal lives and on matters not covered by Infallibility. We have Popes who will never be canonized as Saints. But Papal Infallibility is still intact and has nothing to do with that.

 

Man isn't infallible, but God is and the Holy Spirit is. Can you really say that, if God wanted to, he couldn't use the Holy Spirit to protect his Church? So this isn't about the power of the Pope but the power of God for us. It isn't about men but God.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Asenik

[Parrothead]

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. (I have attended the Catholic Church my entire life, and although I'm pretty much outside of Christianity, I still attend with my family and have a pretty good feel for the average Catholic I see at church.) There are the very conservative Catholics that hang on absolutely every word out of the Pope's mouth. For most Catholics I know today, and I know quite a few and excepting the very conservative ones, they would not necessarily believe it just because the Pope said it.

 

This is, I think, a more recent attitude in the church - in last few decades. Whether right or wrong, the hierarchy of the church has been brought down a notch or two. I also think this is another reason that people are beginning to come forward and make these accusations. I remember well being in Catholic schools in the 60's (and my dh) and no-one EVER questioned a priest. If Father said it, that's the way it was. My dh has said had he ever questioned or accused a priest of something wrong, he would have been in big trouble with his parents for doing so. My dad was a convert and perhaps because of his Protestant background, didn't view priests so much in this way.

 

That is not the attitude I see now among most Catholics (moderate, middle of the road). They openly question priests, and I'm fairly sure, while maybe some wouldn't publicly, would question the Pope, too.

 

And this is putting aside the Pope speaking from the position of 'Ex Cathedra'. I can only think of this being used one time in pronouncing the dogma of the Blessed Mother. I could easily be wrong on that, though.

 

Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth.

:iagree: I agree with your opinion about the pope. I'm a cradle Catholic who has become fairly devote over the years.

 

Today things are quite different. Priests used to be like doctors, in that they were not questioned. But today, as with doctors, priests are questioned.

 

And for the record the pope has only spoken twice from the chair of St. Peter. Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950.

 

Of course, the Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

[Nestof3]

Yes, but the church literally means the called out ones. The church refers to believers -- saints. Believers would not fall away just because the Pope covered up sin. Satan would not prevail overall. To say that he is incapable of lying about whether he knew something about the sins going on is to say that he is incapable of lying. That is a personal matter.

 

Because the Holy Spirit dwells inside individuals, if one man sins, my faith will not be in ruins.

 

I also don't understand how Jesus could have been referring to Popes as there weren't any when he was walking the earth.

 

Not to pick on you, but gee, so do Catholics. I think you misunderstand what Catholics mean by Infallibility. Infallibility does NOT mean that the Pope doesn't make mistakes on a personal level. Infallibility is a gift, part of the promise in the Bible that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Infallbility only comes into play to protect the Church and the Pope acting on behalf of the Church in very specific ways, not in his personal life or for random events. It isn't that the Pope has any special or magical powers but that the Holy Spirit is protecting him in a very special way -- not even for his behalf but on behalf of the Church. Of course men make mistakes. So do Popes in their personal lives and on matters not covered by Infallibility. We have Popes who will never be canonized as Saints. But Papal Infallibility is still intact and has nothing to do with that.

 

Man isn't infallible, but God is and the Holy Spirit is. Can you really say that, if God wanted to, he couldn't use the Holy Spirit to protect his Church? So this isn't about the power of the Pope but the power of God for us. It isn't about men but God.

[HRAAB]

And for the record the pope has only spoken twice from the chair of St. Peter. Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950.

 

 

Thank you. I was thinking of the Assumption and forgot the Immaculate Conception. :blushing:

[HRAAB]

Yes, but the church literally means the called out ones. The church refers to believers -- saints. Believers would not fall away just because the Pope covered up sin. Satan would not prevail overall. To say that he is incapable of lying about whether he knew something about the sins going on is to say that he is incapable of lying. That is a personal matter.

 

Did someone say the Pope is incapable of lying???? This is not a Catholic belief, and is not true.

[Renee in NC]

Yes, but the church literally means the called out ones. The church refers to believers -- saints. Believers would not fall away just because the Pope covered up sin. Satan would not prevail overall. To say that he is incapable of lying about whether he knew something about the sins going on is to say that he is incapable of lying. That is a personal matter.

 

Because the Holy Spirit dwells inside individuals, if one man sins, my faith will not be in ruins.

 

I also don't understand how Jesus could have been referring to Popes as there weren't any when he was walking the earth.

 

The first Pope was Peter, at whom the "gates of hell" statement was directed to when he named him the first pope.

 

I think your post highlights the greatest divide between Protestants and Catholics - what the Church is and what authority it holds.

[elizabeth]

Lest anyone be confused as many here are Protestant , the concept of ex cathedra "from the chair" is used rarely and it is not assumed by informed Catholics that the Pope always speaks from a place of infallibility. The word is circumscribed by the limiting categories of passive or active infallibility. This notion is distorted often by those who wish to show that the Catholic church is not christian at worst and primarily extra biblical at least. Here is a link with the nuances of the Catholic teaching on this issue.

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

 

Actually I posted a very clear elucidation about infallibility as taught by the Catholic church. It is a term of art as used in this context and it can be confusing without knowledge of the limitations placed on the word infallible. It has been my experience that the word caused much confusion when people think it is the same as the common usage meaning of the term.

[Parrothead]

Yes, but the church literally means the called out ones. The church refers to believers -- saints. Believers would not fall away just because the Pope covered up sin. Satan would not prevail overall. To say that he is incapable of lying about whether he knew something about the sins going on is to say that he is incapable of lying. That is a personal matter.

 

Because the Holy Spirit dwells inside individuals, if one man sins, my faith will not be in ruins.

I also don't understand how Jesus could have been referring to Popes as there weren't any when he was walking the earth.

Yes, the pope can lie. He can lie in any situation in which he is NOT speaking from the chair of St. Peter. And in just over 2000 years the pope has only twice spoken in this manner.

 

Over the years there have been great popes, good popes, and some really awful popes. We are all called to be saints. Some of us make it, some of us don't. Some saints are ordinary persons, some are popes.

 

And you are right, even if the pope is involved in scandal, the church would not end. Jesus said Himself that Hell would not prevail against the chruch.

 

And yes, the head of the church at the time of Christ was Jesus Christ himself. But Catholics believe that before He left, Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter and made him the first pope. (Matthew 16:18 and 19.)

[Avila]

Yes, but the church literally means the called out ones. The church refers to believers -- saints. Believers would not fall away just because the Pope covered up sin. Satan would not prevail overall. To say that he is incapable of lying about whether he knew something about the sins going on is to say that he is incapable of lying. That is a personal matter.

 

Because the Holy Spirit dwells inside individuals, if one man sins, my faith will not be in ruins.

 

I also don't understand how Jesus could have been referring to Popes as there weren't any when he was walking the earth.

 

I am going to disgaree with you on the meaning of church. But that is really the heart of the matter, isn't it? I think Jesus left us a Church and left the Church his authority. You don't. No argument, just saying that your definition isn't the only one going here, and it would be hard to agree on the rest of it if we can't even agree on the basic definitions.

 

I haven't seen anybody officially or even unofficially claim that the Pope is incapable of lying. Of course he isn't. No one is saying that, and nobody here is defending that. That isn't what Papal Infallibility means and it isn't what Catholics teach or believe. He would be incapable of steering the Church completely off course in matters of doctrine, which this is not. Again, this isn't a personal protection FOR him, but almost FROM him, so that even when there is a Pope with a lack of understanding or signicant sin in his life, the whole church will not be led astray by it. Anyway, Papal Infallibility is just not an issue with this because it would not cover this. Even Catholics would not say the Pope would be infallible with this. Infallibility is not the same thing as impeccability or sinlessness. Not at all.

 

We agree that lying on this is a personal matter. But none of that has anything to do with him being infallible. He could lie about this and still be infallible in his official duty with the Church. Again, this isn't about one man (or any of the specific men in the line of Popes from Peter until now). If God wanted to leave us a Church, he could have, right? And if he wanted to protect that Church, he also certainly could have. You may not think he did either, but even Protestants have to agree that if he wanted to, he could have done BOTH of those things. He is God. Not man.

 

I personally don't think the Pope is lying here, but Papal Infallibility wouldn't keep him from it.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Asenik

[asta]

And then there's that messy bit about how God left a church to Peter, where it remained for, oh... about 1500 years before some folk decided that that wasn't what he meant at all.

 

(and no, I'm not talking about Luther - he didn't think that - he was a Catholic priest, after all - his disagreement was not with the origins of the Church, but with its administration)

 

This is turning into a rather lively conversation!

 

 

asta

[Carol in Cal.]

And then there's that messy bit about how God left a church to Peter, where it remained for, oh... about 1500 years before some folk decided that that wasn't what he meant at all.

 

 

Nope. This view of Peter was read back into the Biblical account hundreds of years after the fact. It doesn't hold up either as a continuous teaching or as a logical interpretation of the text. Consider the Orthodox view of the church Councils. Consider the 'rock vs. pebble' issue. Consider that the New Testament was primarily written in Greek, with small bits of Aramaic, not Latin. Consider "Papal Sin" by Garry Wills, a scholarly Catholic.

[milovany]

Consider the Orthodox view of the church Councils.

 

Beginning with the first one in Jerusalem (Acts 15) that the apostle James presided over, not Peter. This is a large part of the reason we chose to convert to the ancient Orthodox church rather than the Roman Catholic one (seeing that the church made it's decisions/canons in councils, not under a pope, for the first 800-1000 years of Christianity).

 

That said, I now understand the Catholic church better than I did when I was a Protestant; before we converted I didn't really "get" what the Catholic church was (and how it differed from Protestantism). Now that I've looked at church history -- and what God *did* do in the church and not just what I'd heard happened -- I see it. I encourage any Protestants reading this thread to also step back and realize there's a lot we never really hear about in the Protestant church. We do (well, for us, did) in fact function as if the church was "in the dark" from shortly after the New Testament times until the reformation (I realize that's a general statement, but it's true for most of the Protestants I know).

 

The Orthodox disagree with the Catholics on which church split from which church, but we do share 1000+ years of history before this Great Schism occurred. And that's something I really appreciate now.

Edited March 28, 2010 by milovaný

[Carol in Cal.]

Beginning with the first one in Jerusalem (Acts 15) that the apostle James presided over, not Peter. This is a large part of the reason we chose to convert to the ancient Orthodox church rather than the Roman Catholic one (seeing that the church made it's decisions/canons in councils, not under a pope, for the first 800-1000 years of Christianity).

 

Correct (about James). Re the earlier historical churches, if I were not a Lutheran, I think that I would be Orthodox. Both respect church history a great deal, and, I think, consider it pretty accurately.

 

 

I encourage any Protestants reading this thread to also step back and realize there's a lot we never really hear about in the Protestant church. We do (well, for us, did) in fact function as if the church was "in the dark" from shortly after the New Testament times until the reformation (I realize that's a general statement, but it's true for most of the Protestants I know).

This is not as true in the Lutheran church, which values its catholic, apostolic roots a great deal. I do know that it does happen, but not as much in the Lutheran church as in other Reformation-based churches. For instance, our pastors learn a great deal of church history (unfortunately, though, mostly Western) in seminary. Our seventh grade day school religion curriculum includes a full semester on church history, from the Ascension and Pentecost through today. One of our most scholarly history authors, Paul Maier, has written Lutheran books that popularize the writings of Josephus and Eusebius. These are wildly popular books in Lutheran circles, and he is a very popular speaker among both the laity and the clergy. I hear St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and a few other post-Biblical saints' writings cited occasionally, although not normatively or with Biblical authority.

 

 

 

Your points are well taken and well spoken.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Guess it was a slow news day, what with wars, famine, government take over of healthcare, earthquake victims and all that, there's nothing like a good anti-Catholic story just before Easter to get everyone riled up. :tongue_smilie:

 

I hate to think of the Easter mass at St. Peters' being shown on TV with commentary like "beleaguered Pope celebrates Easter as if nothing happened." It's a smear on the Faith, and it's really gratuitous if it's combined that way.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Carol in Cal.

[milovany]

I hate to think of the Easter mass at St. Peters' being shown on TV with commentary like "beleagued Pope celebrates Easter as if nothing happened." It's a smear on the Faith, and it's really gratuitous if it's combined that way.

 

:iagree:

[Carol in Cal.]

Are you aware that Catholic priests have NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? There are just greater numbers of Catholic priests so there are numerically more "bad apples". Additionally, the centralized nature of the Church makes it much easier to track the problem.

 

I'm not sure whether this is demonstrated to be true. I would be kind of surprised if it were true, though, because of the celebate clergy requirement, which is unique to Catholicism. Once a large group of people has ANY s*xual contact defined as sin, doesn't it leave them open to sort of equating the moral failure of child s*xual abuse with that of extramarital s*x? And also, couldn't it reasonably be expected to lead to a higher proportion of men with forbidden s*xual inclinations ending up in that particular clergy, on the logic that the church requires them to be celibate whether they are clerics or not? And doesn't the peculiar authority and privacy of the clerical responsibilities naturally lead to an unusual opportunity to succumb to temptation, thinking that no one will ever know?

 

I think that it is wrong to single out Catholic clerics as worse than others when all such heinous crimes are devastating and so totally wrong. I just think that there isn't a lot of evidence for the stats that are mentioned, and that for a number of institutional reasons it is counterintuitive to think that Catholic priests would not be over-represented in the population of abusers.

 

It doesn't matter who does it, though. It's horribly wrong, regardless. I'm Lutheran, and I have known of Lutheran pastors and one Lutheran school principal who were accused of child s*xual abuse, and I don't excuse them. Even if it turned out that the rate of abuse was less in my church, I would be no less disgusted by it and certainly not defensive of it.

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

Do you have a citation for this? I have never seen any studies that proved this.

 

The reason there is so much publicity surrounding the tiny fraction of "bad apple" Catholic priests is because of anti-Catholicism. Many journalists and editors are ex-Catholics and they often have a grudge against the Church.

 

I think that in general a lot of journalists and editors are not people of faith, and that they really don't 'get' why anyone would follow a church's teachings. Some sound a bit condescending when they talk of faith matters. It's a huge problem in supposedly dispassionate journalism. I have often thought how much better it would be if Christians worked in that field and entered the editorial discussions with clarifying points. It often seems clear that those are not in play. It's really kind of disconcerting at times.

[Parrothead]

I would be kind of surprised if it were true, though, because of the celebate clergy requirement, which is unique to Catholicism.

Pedophilia is not a celibacy issue. There are plenty of decent celibate priests. There is also a percentage of the general population that is celibate. These people are not necessarily pedophiles.