Can we have a civil conversation about Catholicism?

[mommaduck]

I will say that the point of my statement was based on the comment of doing things more like the Orthodox in structure...though granted there are some practice and dogmatic issues that would have to be addressed, but we all know that already. I believe the RCC ladies here know me well enough to know that I was not making a jab or some other such negative remark...just kind of an observation to one thought process.

[aggieamy]

the images don't show up on my phone, so I'm not sure what your response to quoting me was...

 

I'm on my computer but the images don't show up here either. That's strange. There was another post with images like that I saw tonight also ... I wonder if it's the same person.

[Joker]

I'm on my computer but the images don't show up here either. That's strange. There was another post with images like that I saw tonight also ... I wonder if it's the same person.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's a spammer and he hit most of the threads at the same time using someone else's words and then posting images. I think there's a reason my computer won't let me see the images.

[Spy Car]

 

 

 

Technically, it's just Pope Francis unless he informs us he'd like "the First" as part of his name. John Paul I was the first to do that.

 

 

I did not know this. Thank you.

 

On a tangentially related note, my son's new hickory lacrosse shaft arrived today just as the white smoke started billowing. So we have decided to christen the stick "Francis" so we will always remember the historic day.

 

Bill

[aggieamy]

I'm pretty sure it's a spammer and he hit most of the threads at the same time using someone else's words and then posting images. I think there's a reason my computer won't let me see the images.

 

 

Ah. That makes sense. The language of the post didn't seem right.

[TranquilMind]

I thought the talk of change was referring to the handling of sex abuse cases and the handling of money. I also heard gay marriage mentioned.

 

I admit to not being all that educated about it and I'm going mostly by what I hear on the news (NPR, etc.).

 

 

I think these things are the expectation as well.

[Catwoman]

the images don't show up on my phone, so I'm not sure what your response to quoting me was...

 

 

It's a troll. It's the same troll that has been joining the forum quite frequently. He or she quotes someone else's posts and then tries to link something that doesn't show up as anything but question marks.

 

I reported the idiot.

[Audrey]

I did not know this. Thank you.

 

On a tangentially related note, my son's new hickory lacrosse shaft arrived today just as the white smoke started billowing. So we have decided to christen the stick "Francis" so we will always remember the historic day.

 

Bill

 

 

Well here is another tangentially related note for you. My anniversary is today, the 13th of 2013, so I can always remember this and toss it out as witty trivia at parties -- Pope Francis was pope-inated ((I just made that word up just for you, Bill), on March 13/13. Interestingly enough, the new Pope was bepriested (I just made that word up for you, too) on December 13th.

 

That's three 13's.

:leaving:

[OnTheBrink]

Charlotte Mason never had children, yet she gives very good advice on how to raise them. Because she made herself an expert on children. Priests can advise on things like learning to forgive, being patient, communicating better, etc. When and if they get over the head, they refer you to a good marriage counselor. Most of what it means to be successfully married involves things that a priest can advise you on. Being married is no guarantee that you can give good advice. Having children is no guarantee that you know how to raise children.

 

 

This is a very good point. I believe there are some fundamental principles of life that can be applied to marriages, and the principles don't have to come from someone who's married for them to be applicable and relevant. Be kind. Forgive. Put the other first. Give grace. Be understanding. Be loving. Be respectful. You don't need years of marital experience to give that kind of counsel.

 

I get the desire to receive counsel from someone who's btdt, but I think, generally speaking, that an unmarried priest could give marital counsel. Now, if we're talking sexually intimate marital counsel, I don't think it would be appropriate to approach an unmarried, celibate man about such matters. He is, after all, a man, regardless of his vocation. Why put that out there for him to think about? Keeping thoughts pure is hard enough!

 

Anyway, I'm not Catholic, so I don't really have an opinion about the RCC or the pope specifically.

[milovany]

bepriested

 

I saw your original word. :D

[mommymilkies]

A quick question-is Pope Francis Eastern Rite? Byzantine? I keep seeing confusing references in news articles and I'm tired and confused. Lol

[Avila]

A quick question-is Pope Francis Eastern Rite? Byzantine? I keep seeing confusing references in news articles and I'm tired and confused. Lol

 

No. He did serve as the Eastern Catholic ordinary, because they did not have their own prelate. So he is familiar with (and I am sure sympathetic to) issues for Eastern Catholics. But he is Latin rite.

[AimeeM]

A quick question-is Pope Francis Eastern Rite? Byzantine? I keep seeing confusing references in news articles and I'm tired and confused. Lol

Are you thinking of Jesuit?

[Avila]

The info about him serving as Ordinary is in here:

 

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_bergoglio_jm_en.html

[Little Nyssa]

Mommaduck, you belong to a LOT of social groups!

[mommaduck]

Uhm, yeah, i need to pare down. I'm not seeing these crazy lists you all are though, so I'm not sure what I belong to anymore...

[aggieamy]

Uhm, yeah, i need to pare down. I'm not seeing these crazy lists you all are though, so I'm not sure what I belong to anymore...

 

Let me help you out:

 

Social Groups:Following Charlotte, LOSTies, C.O.F.F.E.E. Club (Christian homeschoolers), Orthodox Christian Homeschooling, WTM Knitters, NaNoWriMO, Positive Discipline WTM Group, Raising Godly Tomatoes, In the Kitchen, Crockpot-ers United, Frugal Living, Natural Living, Motivated Moms, Large Family WTMer's, My Father's World MFW, Classically Flavored Charlotte Mason &/or Ruth Beechick (Christian), Red Flags!, When CM and Classical Collide, The Tick Chicks, Pregnant or Trying to Conceive WTM Moms, Imp's New Smile Prayer/Positive Thoughts Chain, Free Curriculum for the Price of Printing, Writers, MFW: Exploring Countries and Cultures, Crossing the Tiber, Judaism 101, Coursera Greek and Roman Mythology

 

:)

[mommaduck]

Well, they all would be pretty good if they were active...lol. I definitely need to un sub to that one on pregnancy, as that one isn't happening again unless by some odd miracle.

[mommaduck]

:p

[WishboneDawn]

I wish he had taken the BMW! Sigh...it's kind of like the bind low income people are in. If they use the expensive present, they will be judged. It must be worse for priests, though, as you wouldn't want somebody posting 20 years later on a forum, "I knew a priest who drove a BMW! Vow of poverty, my foot!" ;-)

 

I'm rather glad he didn't take the BMW and don't think there's anything unfortunate about him driving the van around.

 

I suspect he had more issues then the one he shared with the gentleman.

 

One, he could have a concern about himself, about properly ministering to the less fortunate in his flock if he has the good fortune to be able to put aside some of the real and daily struggles they have to deal with.

 

Two, having some concerns like the above he may have recognized that he would have to begin justifying his choice to himself in order to accept the BMW. He would have to be telling himself, "I'm saving the parish money," or "this is a much safer option," and once a person starts doing that to somehow balance a choice and make it seem more palatable to themselves, well, it's a bit of a slippery moral slope. That's especially dangerous for a man in his position methinks.

 

He's not unfortunate for having to drive a beat-up van. He's a man to be admired for making a choice so many of us wouldn't in order to stay on a principled path.

[Faithr]

This is a very good point. I believe there are some fundamental principles of life that can be applied to marriages, and the principles don't have to come from someone who's married for them to be applicable and relevant. Be kind. Forgive. Put the other first. Give grace. Be understanding. Be loving. Be respectful. You don't need years of marital experience to give that kind of counsel.

 

I get the desire to receive counsel from someone who's btdt, but I think, generally speaking, that an unmarried priest could give marital counsel. Now, if we're talking sexually intimate marital counsel, I don't think it would be appropriate to approach an unmarried, celibate man about such matters. He is, after all, a man, regardless of his vocation. Why put that out there for him to think about? Keeping thoughts pure is hard enough!

 

Anyway, I'm not Catholic, so I don't really have an opinion about the RCC or the pope specifically.

 

you

And this why they'll refer to a marriage counselor when it is needed. In fact, at my parish we have a counselor employed there in addition to our one beleaguered pastor.

 

Btw, another good thing about priests counseling you is that they do it for free! I have a friend whose marriage was in deep trouble. She and her husband were on the verge of separating. As a desperate measure she approached a priest she didn't really know but had been impressed by and asked him to come to dinner because she was facing a crisis. I don't think her dh knew she had invited him. The priest came over and she told him everything. He spent hours with them that night counseling, talking and praying. All for free! Except she had to make him dinner (thought I don't know how much actually got eaten!). She credits that priest with saving her marriage. She's now been married some 30 plus years (with six children). So they really can help!

[mommymilkies]

Are you thinking of Jesuit?

No, that one is obvious. Thanks, Avila! That's what I was talking about. I was curious as to how this will change his perspective.

[Elinor Everywhere]

Black smoke or white smoke?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist a little conclave humor :D

 

BTW, Your Preist seems wise.

 

Bill

 

I'm glad you're back, Bill. :)

[Little Nyssa]

Two, having some concerns like the above he may have recognized that he would have to begin justifying his choice to himself in order to accept the BMW. He would have to be telling himself, "I'm saving the parish money," or "this is a much safer option," and once a person starts doing that to somehow balance a choice and make it seem more palatable to themselves, well, it's a bit of a slippery moral slope. That's especially dangerous for a man in his position methinks.

This is a really important point. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Jayne J]

 

 

 

Bergoglio was the ordinary for Eastern Catholics in Argentina. I don't know what that looked like, practically, but I'm sure that experience shaped him in some way.

 

Can somebody 'splain please?

[Little Nyssa]

Yes, what is an Ordinary? Is it the same as the Papal Nuncio?

[Jayne J]

LOL. They will have to back up a little further even than that for me!

[VeritasMama]

An ordinary is an officer who has authority to execute canon law. I believe a Catholic Bishop is an ordinary for his diocese automatically through his position, while other people may be appointed ordinary for specific areas or for specific purposes or cases. The Pope is ordinary for the entire church. That is my understanding, I could be wrong, if so someone feel free to correct me :).

 

I'm not sure how a RC Bishop would become ordinary for an EO church, maybe he was simply filling in with special permission until someone else could appointed by the EOC? It would be an extraordinary ordinary, that is for sure ;) .

[ktgrok]

He was Ordinary for Eastern Catholics, not Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Catholics are under the authority of the Pope, but use a different liturgy,a nd have different traditions.

 

An Ordinary is like a bishop, for not for a geographic area. A Bishop has a specific area he is in charge of, and you can mark it on a map. But an Ordinary is in charge of a group that isn't exactly a geographic location, it's bound by some other feature.

[UrbanSue]

He wasn't an Eastern Orthodox ordinary, he was the ordinary for Eastern Rite Catholics. Many areas of the world where Orthodoxy is the majority have always had pockets faithful to Rome. Those communities are allowed to worship according to their ancient, Eastern rites. So, it's not the same as Eastern Orthodox. I don't know, but I would imagine, that there is probably deep animosities between the two communities some places. The Eastern Rite Catholics in Argentina don't (or didn't for a time) have their own Ordinary so he was appointed by Rome even though, normally, they would have had someone of their own rite. Pope Francis, I have heard, is a fan of diversity, and I just thought this experience of working with Eastern Rite Catholics probably shaped him in some ways.

[Jayne J]

Ahh. Thank you. All of this can be rather confusing!

[ElizaG]

I'm not sure how a RC Bishop would become ordinary for an EO church, maybe he was simply filling in with special permission until someone else could appointed by the EOC? It would be an extraordinary ordinary, that is for sure ;) .

As ktgrok and UrbanSue said, he was the bishop in charge of the ordinariate for the Eastern Catholic Churches in Argentina.

 

Here's a more detailed explanation of how this works, from the link above (Wikipedia):

 

"Canonically, each Eastern Catholic Church is sui iuris or autonomous with respect to other Catholic Churches, whether Eastern or Latin, though all accept the spiritual and juridical authority of the Pope. Thus a Maronite Catholic is normally subject only to a Maronite bishop. However, if members of a particular Church are so few that no hierarchy of their own has been established, their spiritual care is entrusted to a bishop of another ritual Church – such as Eritrea's Latin Rite Catholics in the care of the Eastern Rite Ethiopian Catholic Church."

 

So it seems that having this sort of extraordinary ordinary is a fairly ordinary thing. :)

[*Michelle*]

such as Eritrea's Latin Rite Catholics in the care of the Eastern Rite Ethiopian Catholic Church."

 

 

And on a completely side note, did you know that Bob Marley converted to the Ethiopian Rite before he died?

[Little Nyssa]

Ordinary extraordinary ordinary, haha! How far can we go with this?

 

As for Bob Marley, I have read this and I believe it, but I think there are those out there who either don't believe it or think that it wasn't his free choice. I feel bound to say that, in honesty.

[armymomma]

The Catholics in the military are part of an Ordinariate as well. All very ordinary for us.

[mamatohaleybug]

Really enjoying this thread and, as usual, learning a lot. Pope Francis seems a remarkable man. I'm impressed with his humility. I am so happy for my Catholic brothers and sisters.

[Parrothead]

The papal nuncio is the pope's ambassador.

[albeto]

Watching the news and reading online, I keep seeing comments from people hoping that the new Pope will "make changes" in the Church. If they are only talking about birth control and women in the Priesthood, they are just showing their lack of education. The Catholic church WILL NEVER change those two things. A quick scan of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it pretty clearly. Like it or lump it, those things are here to stay, period.

 

So, is that it? Is there something else people want to see changed??

 

Please be civil in your comments.

 

 

 

I think birth control and women in the priesthood are the least of what people want to see different in the RCC. After years of exposing sexual abuse and the systematic cover-ups of known abuse, addressed only after it was made public, we still see examples of just how out of touch church authority, spiritual leaders and advisers, are with regards to understanding of what's wrong.

 

Father Benedict Groeschel, American Friar, Claims Teens Seduce Priests In Some Sex Abuse Cases

 

Cardinal Mahony Forgives Those Angry that he Covered Up Child Rape

 

 

"In the past several days, I have experienced many examples of being humiliated. In recent days, I have been confronted in various places by very unhappy people. I could understand the depth of their anger and outrage--at me, at the Church, at about injustices that swirl around us.

 

 

Thanks to God's special grace, I simply stood there, asking God to bless and forgive them."

 

Bishop Stephan Ackermann of Trier, who is looking into abuse cases for the German Bishops’ Conference, reports shocking belief among sexual predator priests:

 

 

 

“I found particularly devastating the perpetrators’ lies to their under-aged victims that their actions were an exp

ression of a loving bond with Godâ€

 

The Pope Emeritus' understanding of pedophilia.

 

 

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children."

 

Vatican Will Protect Benedict From Sexual Abuse Prosecution

 

 

"Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say."

 

 

"In 2010, for example, Benedict was named as a defendant in a law suit alleging that he failed to take action as a cardinal in 1995 when he was allegedly told about a priest who had abused boys at a U.S. school for the deaf decades earlier. The lawyers withdrew the case last year and the Vatican said it was a major victory that proved the pope could not be held liable for the actions of abusive priests."

 

I think people want to see more compassion and less bloodthirst from the RCC with regards to LGBTQ

 

Pope Benedict Blesses Top Lawmaker Pushing Uganda’s Kill The Gays Bill

Gay marriage is apparently one of several threats that undermined "the future of humanity itself."

 

I think to a lesser extent, but increasingly, people are interested in seeing the ostentatious habits of the RCC replaced with actual contributions to humanity.

 

Although the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars, doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.

 

 

In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (

wiki

)

 

Pope’s Personal Income: $200 Million Annually, but the The Vatican Bank, The Most Secret Bank In the World, stands accused of money laundering.

 

Catholic Church Makes a Fortune In the German Porn Business

 

 

"Weltbild, one of Germany’s largest publishing companies, happens to be owned and operated by the Catholic Church. But that has not stopped it from publishing books that many of the faithful find offensive."

 

 

In short, I think there are a lot of practical things that need attention for an organization that claims to be the repository of the faith of Jesus Christ. I hope you understand my links are not meant to "attack" in any way, they are just my way of showing from where I get these ideas, so you know I'm not just making things up out of my head, or citing rumors as facts, kwim?

 

I will say, from what I've heard of Pope Francis, this ostentatiousness might just be addressed, however possible involvement with right-winged, fascist government take over and murder would be unsettling if true (reserving opinions for further information).

[ElizaG]

After years of exposing sexual abuse and the systematic cover-ups of known abuse, addressed only after it was made public, we still see examples of just how out of touch church authority, spiritual leaders and advisers, are with regards to understanding of what's wrong.

This is a horrible but age-old situation that can be found in every sort of secular and religious institution -- all the way to the first institution of all, the family. Unchastity, perversion, and abuse of power are problems of fallen humanity, not specific to any one group.

 

As a Catholic, I believe that our own institutions should be held to a higher standard than the others. But I'm not sure why so many non-Catholics also think this.

 

More to the point, in the interests of children and other vulnerable people, I think the media and self-appointed critics need to broaden their focus. In recent months, just to give a few examples, I've read accounts of widespread abuse and cover-ups in an Amish village; a Mormon boys' ranch in Utah; Orthodox Jewish schools in New York, London, and Melbourne; and the Hollywood film and TV industry. And yet, these allegations don't seem to have attracted nearly so much attention so far. Certainly, discussions relating to the groups in question don't automatically turn to the subject of abuse and its denial, as if this were one of their defining characteristics. And that seems fair, because I don't think it is. Sad to say, it's far too common for that.

 

My own feeling is that all the victims deserve advocacy and support, and all the assailants deserve punishment -- not just the ones who happen to be in Catholic environments.

[Aelwydd]

 

This is a horrible but age-old situation that can be found in every sort of secular and religious institution -- all the way to the first institution of all, the family. Unchastity, perversion, and abuse of power are problems of fallen humanity, not specific to any one group.

 

That is true. However, it is also true that such perversions do not permeate every institution, every group to the same degree and the same frequency. To state that one group, which has a high incidence of particular type of offender, should be regarded as no worse than another different group--where the incidence of offense is rarer, or where it is aggressively addressed, or where such activities cannot be hidden from prosecution--is to state a false equivalency.

 

To put it simply, yes, the Utah group had serious issues with sexual crimes targeting children. Yes, Penn State has had a very public scandal involving child rape. Yes, other groups, such as the Episcopal Church, have had issues with religious leaders taking advantage of minors.

 

The difference, IMO, is the scale of the practice of child molestation and rape, and also the magnitude of the power and resources involved in covering this up. Also, the response. In most other groups or institutions, once these offenders are found out, they are not protected from public scorn, and given financial and/or professional protection to avoid trial and incarceration if found guilty.

 

Among RCC (and other conservative catholic clergy), there is a very real belief that canon law supercedes your regular old domestic, mundane state law. IOW, there's God's law, and then there's Caesar's law. Which is why bishops and cardinals have often acted according to a "higher" duty to "discipline" these offenders as an "in house" matter, instead of turning them over to authorities. In their mind, they operated according to GOD'S authority, something that trumped anything the law of the land may say anyway. They didn't want it to sully the reputation of the hierarchy, by allowed to come to public light the monsters they had previously identified as called to Holy Orders.

 

In contrast, Utah group simply did not and does not have the political and financial clout and connections to hide away its offenders the same way the Vatican may do. Even Penn State, with all of its money and influence, could not spare Joe Paterno's vaunted image and reputation as someone who did not do enough to stop a child rapist. In the end, he fell, both metaphorically and physically. Even if they were able to continue their abominable activities unchecked, the scope of the damage is confined to a discrete area. Not so with the RCC.

 

Now, there have been at least two Popes who have had knowledge of a much more widespread phenomena, perpetrated over and over again by an ever broadening group of priests and bishops. One passed away, and one is now retired, safely ensconced behind the Vatican's walls, protected against any legal proceedings against him, or investigations. Yet, it is entirely possible--nay, likely--that he tacitly approved of the same quiet hiding away of a very dangerous breed of criminal.

 

I want to know--if the Church believes it is Her duty to lead moral and social campaigns to affect the laws of different countries, and thereby influence the moral set of laws for all respective citizens--not just Catholics--than why should Catholics be shocked and/or offended when the RCC is scrutinized and held to a higher standard?

 

Everyone else has chimed in and mentioned what they would like to see an improvement in.

 

St Peter wrote in his first epistle that judgment comes first upon the house of God. If that is true, then Roman Catholics should embrace the purging that needs to happen, cut off the diseased limbs that cause sin, and remember that Jesus warned that those who offend His little ones would be better served to be cast into the deepest sea, weighted with a millstone.

 

Clearly, it's not a good idea to downplay the terrible offenses that have been wrought by many wearing the cloth. Instead of shoving this to the side, this issue, this terrible blight should be front and center for every Catholic. Conversely, however, when this issue is brought up the response is almost invariably defensiveness and anger, because the Vatican is somehow seen as beyond the purview of mere mortals. When this issue is discussed, I've come to expect to see anger expressed on behalf of the Catholic leadership, and little or none expressed on behalf of the victims, or victims' groups. Usually, it's the other way way around. Or, the anger is directed at the people who dare to condemn the Vatican's tepid response to child rape and molestation among its ranks, as "bashers" or just people seeking to attack Catholics.

 

Until there is a genuine effort, rather than the same old script of deny, deflect, defend the offender, and ignore or even accuse the victims of lying--until that is acknowledged for the deeply SYSTEMIC problem it is, the RCC will continue to be rocked by scandal after scandal. I don't believe for one second we've seen even a tenth of the full extent of the abuse perpetrated on victims throughout the world. And I say that with a deep respect for the ritual, the beauty, the mystery of this ancient edifice. But until this stuff gets seriously addressed, and not simply downplayed and avoided, the edifice will remain a white-washed wall and a stumbling block to the faith of many.

 

Bottom line: credibility and authenticity are what I really and truly HOPE will be restored to the RCC leadership. But, I'm not really optimistic.

[ktgrok]

This is a horrible but age-old situation that can be found in every sort of secular and religious institution -- all the way to the first institution of all, the family. Unchastity, perversion, and abuse of power are problems of fallen humanity, not specific to any one group.

 

As a Catholic, I believe that our own institutions should be held to a higher standard than the others. But I'm not sure why so many non-Catholics also think this.

 

More to the point, in the interests of children and other vulnerable people, I think the media and self-appointed critics need to broaden their focus. In recent months, just to give a few examples, I've read accounts of widespread abuse and cover-ups in an Amish village; a Mormon boys' ranch in Utah; Orthodox Jewish schools in New York, London, and Melbourne; and the Hollywood film and TV industry. And yet, these allegations don't seem to have attracted nearly so much attention so far. Certainly, discussions relating to the groups in question don't automatically turn to the subject of abuse and its denial, as if this were one of their defining characteristics. And that seems fair, because I don't think it is. Sad to say, it's far too common for that.

 

My own feeling is that all the victims deserve advocacy and support, and all the assailants deserve punishment -- not just the ones who happen to be in Catholic environments.

 

 

I think what is at issue is that the very structure of the Church, at present, makes these things more difficult to deal with, and easier to cover up. Right now there is virtually no involvement of the laity in any real way. That, in my opinion, needs to change. I really really really like the structure of the Anglican/Episcopal churches....still top down, but the people have much more of a voice. As an example, priests are not assigned, they are interviewed and hired by the parish. That kind of thing helps prevent the moving around of bad priests, because the laity is involved in talking to the people at the previous parish, finding out details, etc. There is a system in place of Dioceses, Bishops and Archbishops (or Presiding Bishop in the case of the USA, for whatever silly reason), but there is a system of checks and balances that helps keep things more accountable and transparent. That kind of change IS doable, in the long term, and would help.

 

Even devout Catholic priests have admitted the Curia needs to be reformed as well, and probably restructured...its is built on a medieval model and should be reformed.

[*Michelle*]

The Church has put many new policies and procedures in place to prevent further abuse. For example, this is from my diocese. Action is being taken. It may not be reported on, but it is happening.

[ElizaG]

That is true. However, it is also true that such perversions do not permeate every institution, every group to the same degree and the same frequency.

If this behavior is mostly still hidden (and I believe it still is), how do we know with what degree and frequency it permeates other groups? To make any claims about it would just be guessing.

 

In most other groups or institutions, once these offenders are found out, they are not protected from public scorn, and given financial and/or professional protection to avoid trial and incarceration if found guilty.

Among RCC (and other conservative catholic clergy), there is a very real belief that canon law supercedes your regular old domestic, mundane state law. IOW, there's God's law, and then there's Caesar's law.

The first sentence seems naive, to put it mildly. From what I've been reading, the cover-ups and reassignments are a very common feature. And being "conservative" clearly has nothing to do with it. Without getting into naming names, some of the most notorious cases among Catholics have involved leaders who were considered very "liberal."

 

There are also parallels to the Church's legal system in other communities: Amish elders, Haredi beit din (Jewish religious courts), etc. They would prefer to address these matters internally. There is a very strong reluctance among these groups to hand any of their members over to the state. Complicating this further, as I understand it, some of these communities have a religious prohibition against speaking any ill of their group to outsiders. Due to the ways this can be interpreted, people who have talked about these things publicly have faced the risk of being shunned, sometimes in very severe ways. For Catholics, insofar as we've ever had such attitudes among laypeople (which were more of a local cultural thing than a tenet of our faith), they've pretty much fallen by the wayside.

 

In any case, it doesn't seem to me that the Catholics on this thread, or the ones I know in real life, are in any kind of denial about this. We know that there are serious sins and likely crimes that involve high-ranking members of the Church. This hurts us more than anyone here, because the Church is our own family. But as Michelle pointed out, these problems are being addressed -- maybe not as some observers would like, but in ways that are providing a positive example for other groups. (I'm not making this up; the secular media has quoted many non-Catholics to this effect.)

 

And more importantly, these things don't define us. Our faith in Christ, our doctrine, our prayer, and our sacraments define us. Not creepy behavior by people who are unworthy of their calling. Which we have always had. "Corruption in the Church" goes all the way back to the original twelve apostles. And as for this particular type of corruption, a thousand years ago, a prominent Catholic wrote a scathing book condemning the behavior of lax and selfish members of the clergy who abused boys (among other types of vice), and far from being excommunicated, he was eventually made a Doctor of the Church.

 

Those were dark times in many ways -- and yet the period that he lived through was followed by two centuries of a remarkable flowering of spirituality and Christian culture that still inspires us today, including the legacy of many saints, seven more Doctors of the Church, and the birth of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. Who could have predicted that? So, you never know. :)

 

I'm certainly not equipped to predict what our new pope will do, but he seems to know what being a Catholic Christian is all about, and to be unafraid to proclaim it. I trust that everything else that's necessary will follow from that.

[Soror]

And in answer to the original question, that would be a no.

[albeto]

This is a horrible but age-old situation that can be found in every sort of secular and religious institution -- all the way to the first institution of all, the family. Unchastity, perversion, and abuse of power are problems of fallen humanity, not specific to any one group.

 

I recognize this. I recognize these behaviors are human in nature, and not indicative of any particular theology or theological belief.

 

As a Catholic, I believe that our own institutions should be held to a higher standard than the others. But I'm not sure why so many non-Catholics also think this.

 

I understand the RCC identifies itself as being the repository of truth and faith of Jesus. Further, the Bishop of Rome is understood to be the Vicar of Christ, that is, Christ himself is understood to work through this bishop in a particular and divine way. Clearly, this last bishop was powerless to allow Christ to work through him, unless Christ inspired him to work to cover up sexual abuse. This idea alone separates the RCC from other organizations, like public schools, Boy Scouts, etc, that have their own share of sexual abuse criminal activity. Others don't identify themselves as being the conduit between a perfect god and mankind, the conduit through which God normally operates (not to say he doesn't in other ways, but this is the typical way set up by Jesus). The shocking nature of such a scandal is upstaged by the fact that people who are supposedly closest to the truth were responding to these events in painfully obviously immoral ways.

 

More to the point, in the interests of children and other vulnerable people, I think the media and self-appointed critics need to broaden their focus. In recent months, just to give a few examples, I've read accounts of widespread abuse and cover-ups in an Amish village; a Mormon boys' ranch in Utah; Orthodox Jewish schools in New York, London, and Melbourne; and the Hollywood film and TV industry. And yet, these allegations don't seem to have attracted nearly so much attention so far. Certainly, discussions relating to the groups in question don't automatically turn to the subject of abuse and its denial, as if this were one of their defining characteristics. And that seems fair, because I don't think it is. Sad to say, it's far too common for that.

 

I understand. The media works for profit, and it's simply more profitable to exploit certain scandals more so than others. This is unfortunate and shouldn't be confused with support for the idea that one is "worse" than the other.

 

My own feeling is that all the victims deserve advocacy and support, and all the assailants deserve punishment -- not just the ones who happen to be in Catholic environments.

 

I totally agree with you there.

[Aelwydd]

And in answer to the original question, that would be a no.

 

Maybe I have misread your tone but--this statement is based upon what? A difference of opinion does not, in and of itself, constitute lack of civility. I have expressed my criticisms of the organization. Eliza has expressed her disagreement, and though I feel she has misunderstood some points of my position, she hasn't offended me by expressing her own critical thoughts.

 

What exactly constitutes a civil discourse in your opinion? One in which any mention of the RCC's offenses is attended by an obligatory apology and genuflection towards Rome?

 

There have been other recent threads on this board geared toward carefully constructed discussion where any criticism or negative comments towards the RCC have been expressly unwelcome. I did not participate in those threads, because those were clearly of a supportive nature.

 

In this thread, however, the OP seems to be seeking a more analytical and open discussion, seeking honest feelings and thoughts regarding the Church. I know I'm not alone in my impressions of the RCC, and the Vatican in particular. I shared my misgivings as forthrightly and honestly as I can, and gave my reasons. At no point did I resort to contempt or condemnation of Catholics in general. I focused on attitudes and actions. I had actually planned one more carefully considered response to Eliza's post, and then to simply agree to disagree beyond that.

 

But if all that is going to do is evoke a peevish response of, "just proves people can't be civil," then I leave you to your defensiveness. May it grant you protection in matters spiritual, as well as emotional.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

Those were dark times in many ways -- and yet the period that he lived through was followed by two centuries of a remarkable flowering of spirituality and Christian culture that still inspires us today, including the legacy of many saints, seven more Doctors of the Church, and the birth of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. Who could have predicted that? So, you never know. :)

 

I'm certainly not equipped to predict what our new pope will do, but he seems to know what being a Catholic Christian is all about, and to be unafraid to proclaim it. I trust that everything else that's necessary will follow from that.

 

Eliza, I would like to respond to this, because there are a lot of very important points you've addressed, and deserve more exploration. However, as my last response to soror may indicate, I am not interested in further discussion here. I am no more eager to have my arguments reduced to Catholic bashing, than Catholics here are to have their faith put on trial for the sins of others. I'm not interested in being baited. I hope you understand. I'm more than happy to continue our discussion via PM if you are likewise inclined, however.

 

Peace.

[Parrothead]

Maybe I have misread your tone but--this statement is based upon what?

 

Just FYI, soror wasn't the first to make the same comment in this thread. I may be wrong but I don't think her comment had anything to do with yours.

[Aelwydd]

Just FYI, soror wasn't the first to make the same comment in this thread. I may be wrong but I don't think her comment had anything to do with yours.

 

It wasn't just the words, Chucki, it was the timing of it. The thread has remained civil and respectful in tone. As soon as a few posters expressed some highly critical opinions, then thus it was pronounced.

 

The implication: serious criticism of the RCC's leadership, or the institution in general, equates an innate lack of civility on part of the commenter.

 

It's not only rude--it's also highly prejudiced. That's why I find it offensive.

[Soror]

My initial reaction to the thread title is no, without reading any posts. I've read a bit too much Catholic bashing on here as of late and I'm rather tired of it.

 

eta

In a crude comparison this seems to be akin to us Catholics putting a great big "kick me" sign on our back. I think there has been plenty of complaints about Catholics, Popes, doctrines, etc on here without inviting more.