Clergy sexual abuse scandal (continued)

This is a continuation of the old thread The German sexual abuse scandal and the Pope which got rather too long for comfort.

Vatican recalls Irish papal envoy after Cloyne report (BBC)

The John Jay Study: What it is and what it isn't (NCR)

'Fess up! you just didn't like being 666.

; )

>3 pmackey: OK, I much prefer being #1...

Well #1 suits you much better. When you were 666 I had to double check your profile photo for horns....

Seriously, when I was a kid my parents taught me that if I messed up (by accident or on purpose) the best way to fix things was to own up. There have been some very unpleasant times in my life where I've chosen to follow their advice, and overall I'm much healthier for it. If I confess my screw-up and do my best to make amends, then I have done all I can and the rest is out of my control. I find the Catholic church's attempt at a legal dodge unconscionable. They have owned up lately, but the perception is that the owning up was forced on them. To prove they are truly sorry, they need to do their best to make amends. Frankly, that will take money because it's society's way of exacting a penalty.

To claim that priests, nuns, etc. are not church employees only makes the church look greedy and uncaring. It's as if they're putting the bottom line before the souls entrusted to their care. If the story as reported was accurate, then I'll say it again: shame, shame, shame on them.

Summit to spotlight 'Meat Loaf' strategy on abuse (NCR)

Even by the fractious standards of conversation about almost anything these days, debate over the Catholic sexual abuse crisis is remarkably polarized. Defenders say the church has cleaned up its act to such an extent that it’s now a model for child protection, while critics rip purported reforms as sound and fury signifying little.

In part, that’s because a fatal ambiguity has long shot through the discussion. Depending on who’s speaking, reference to “the crisis” can mean at least three different things...

...one slightly irreverent way of capturing the institutional response so far would be in terms of a “Meat Loaf” strategy, invoking the title of a famous ballad by the ’70s rock star: “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad.”

(Bishop) Braxton battles on against abuse suit (NCR)

Clergy in the dock (Daily Nation (Kenya))

Interestingly this article isn't specifically about the Catholic Church but focuses on "small, unregulated churches that follow no established doctrines and that are run like roadside kiosks". It also goes wider than sexual abuse and includes murder, robbery and possession of explosives.

Sorry for all the pain, anguish we caused you: church (Daily Nation (Kenya))

The Catholic Church in Australia on Monday apologised for the forced adoption of babies from young, unwed mothers in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s...

Pope's UK visit prompts increase in sex abuse allegations against church (Guardian)

Body set up to improve Catholic church's response to abuse reveals three-fold rise in allegations in 2010

Irish politician calls for Dublin Catholic conference to be postponed (Guardian)

Senator Cáit Keane says cancel liturgical event given row with Vatican over inquires into child sex abuse by priests in Ireland

>6 John5918:

I couldn't hope, but yes, the "meat loaf strategy" is indeed THE Meat Loaf.

The Papal Nuncio for Ireland has been reassigned to the Czech Republic.

"It will be necessary very soon to analyze the formation of the sexual morals for the priests," Cardinal Miroslav Vlk, former archbishop of Prague. However, he has been replaced by Dominik Duka, who has been reported as blaming the Irish church crisis largely on atheists. Perhaps the incoming Papal Nuncio would kindly inform him that the Taoiseach is a Roman Catholic.

Vatican row over sex abuse scandal reveals emergence of a new Ireland (Guardian)

Nation now more secular and tolerant, say activists as Enda Kenny 'captured anger of a generation' with speech

Catholic church weighs up response to criticism from Ireland (Guardian)

Vatican officials claim Enda Kenny may be using report into sexual abuse by priests to divert attention from euro crisis

While parts of the reported Vatican response appear clumsily defensive, there is an interesting point near the end of this article:

In any case, say other Vatican officials, even if the Congregation's response was misguided, it was made before 2001. That is when, in their view, there was a sea change.

Pope John Paul II ordered all cases of alleged sex abuse to be dealt with in Rome by the department then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as he was known then. As he read the paperwork, the future pope became increasingly appalled by what he saw, and put in place an altogether more effective policy. "Not to recognise that there has been a learning curve and that things have changed is stupid", said a senior Vatican official.

The really interesting point is that the Cloyne report has produced evidence that in 2009 about two thirds of the abuse cases reported to the Church were not reported to authorities.

Scandal scuppers prospect of Ireland electing first gay president (Guardian)

David Norris drops out of race over revelation he pleaded for clemency for former partner over rape of 15-year-old boy

Not the Church this time, but another example of the rich and powerful trying to use their influence to cover up the crime of child rape, as has happened in many institutions.

#13 another example of the rich and powerful trying to use their influence

While David Norris is a member of the Senate (Seanad in Irish) he is not rich and not particularly powerful. His father was an engineer. Senator Norris was a university lecturer and campaigner for human rights. He has spent most of his public life supporting the downtrodden and oppressed, as well as gay rights, himself being the first openly gay person elected politician in Ireland.

He has lived in a modest house in Dublin's inner city for a long time.

What he did was a gross misjudgement and he should not have used his position in the Seanad to plead clemency for his partner under any circumstances; a case of statutory rape makes it all the worse.

He is not, however, one of the rich and powerful; in fact, as an independent politician he would have been a major thorn in the side of the rich and powerful.

It is because of his support for, and work on behalf of the ordinary person that he was leading the polls for the presidential election with 25% of the poll, and that was without having a nomination.

>14 pgmcc: Thanks for that insight. I had never heard of the bloke before, so I didn't know his record, but at first glance it looks to me like an example of someone who is part of the institutional establishment (whether as an independent or as a party member) abusing his position.

How then, do we deal with such gross misjudgements (to use your words) on the part of someone who has an otherwise exemplary and indeed heroic record? Would you leap to the defence of a bishop who had an exemplary and heroic record of working for human rights but who made a similar error in trying to cover up the case of a child rapist?

#15
Would you leap to the defence of a bishop who had an exemplary and heroic record of working for human rights but who made a similar error in trying to cover up the case of a child rapist?

No, and I'm not jumping to Senator Norris's defence with regards to his writing the letter for clemency. He has done the right thing by withdrawing his candidacy for the presidency.
I was clarifying the point that he was, and is, not rich and powerful.

In terms of the example you put forward, it differs in a fundamental way from the David Norris case. The bishops have systematically covered up child rape and abuse and the Vatican has obstructed investigations (as recently as 2009).

Senator Norris did not try to cover up anything. His partner had already been convicted in Isreal of statutory rape when he wrote the letter.

The amount of evidence gathered and presented in the various reports on child sexual abuse by the clergy in Ireland alone is overwhelming. The actions of the bishops in their dealings to cover up the various cases when set beside the supposed purpose of their organisation and role is not only gross misjudgement, but hypocritical and, as appears to be the case, criminally negligent. The majority of these bishops, when faced with the facts, have failed to do the honourable thing and resign.

Those that offered their resignations had their resignations rejected by the Vatican, which shows "gross misjudgement" on the part of the Vatican.

I'm afraid good behaviour in one area does not excuse bad behaviour in another; espeically when you represent an organisation that preaches about high morals and setting a good example.

>16 pgmcc: Thanks, Peter. I wasn't really trying to start an argument and apologies if it looked that way. I agree with you completely that the large-scale institutional cover-up perpetrated by the Church is in a completely different league from a single politician. I also agree that pleading for leniency is not in itself wrong, although of course one possible outcome of his plea might be that a convicted child rapist would be released into the community where he could re-offend and rape another child. His misjudgement was in the abuse of power (and I still think that someone who has a realistic chance of being elected president is "powerful", whatever his background) in using his position (and letterhead) to make the plea. Silvio Berlusconi made a similar political misjudgement in trying to get his 17-year old female friend off the hook, although in her case it was only theft, not child rape.

But what piqued my interest was whether we do tend to treat cases differently depending on whether the person who makes a misjudgement comes from a "good" background (an apparently popular human rights activist who has campaigned bravely on issues including gay rights) or a "bad" one (the evil misogynist anti-gay theocratic brainwashing sex-obsessed anti-contraception anti-abortion Catholic Church). While I would certainly not try to defend most of the bishops who were involved in this type of cover-up, nevertheless there are bishops who were exemplars of human rights advocacy and activism in apartheid South Africa, war-torn Sudan, Latin America under right-wing dictatorships, the former Soviet Union under communism, and elsewhere. Many of them suffered and died because of it. What if one of them made such a misjudgement? What if it turned out that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or Archbishop Oscar Romero, or indeed Mother Theresa, had made such an error? I agree that "good behaviour in one area does not excuse bad behaviour in another", but I just wonder how we would judge them.

#17 I wasn't really trying to start an argument and apologies if it looked that way.

John, I didn't think you were trying to start an argument, but posing a query; possibly even a dilema.

My response was not meant to sound aggressive and apologies if it did. I would hope I can discuss topics without resorting to the type of aggressive argument that can be seen very often on some threads. However, I do admit that the topic probably did get me going and apologies if you took offence from my comments. Any offence in my words was not meant for you.

In terms of your general query about people of impeccable credentials making a misjudgement: if we treat people differently for the same crime then we are creating a dangerous precedent. I am no lawer or philosopher (I find disqualifying oneself from having any knowledge on a subject adds so much weight to one's comments - they do it all the time on adverts) but I suspect your question could create a long and lengthy debate. It also strikes me as a debate that can only really be carried out by people who do not believe that "judging" people is bad. If one follows "judge not lest you be judged" then one has to decline from participation in the debate because it is all about judgement at the end of the day.

One approach to seeking a solution could be to take one of your examples and put them, hypothetically speaking, in an extreme case situation. Take Archbishop Tutu: let's say he had for some nevarious reason, committed a murder. ("No! No!" you say. "He would nerver do that." Do we say, "Oh don't worry about that. You've done great things at other times"? I don't think so.

One of the key elements in the Church's handling of the abuse cases in Ireland, and I understand elsewhere, has been its lack of action to prevent offenders offending again; and not just in one case, but systematically. In Ireland the Church consistently poured scorn on accusers and made life intolerable for these victims.

The fact that cases were still not being reported in 2009 shows that the organisation is still slow to learn the lessons of the situation. It also appears it is taking a very legalistic approach to the reports and, in particular, in replying to the Irish Government's statements in following the Cloyne report.

Apologies for muddling up the case of the individual with the case of the organisation, but we see a situation in the Catholic Church where the "organisation" is behaving like a sentient being and is defending itself in an organisational way. Organisations do that. The fact that there are good people in the organisation does not change that. (I do have some credentials in relation to organisational behaviour, so my comments on this subject will obviously be suspect.)

I do agree that society does often treat people differently on the basis of their background and this, when exposed, is seen, as it should be, as wrong. It can often lead to miscarriage of justice, and we have seen many cases of that over the years.

>18 pgmcc: Thanks, Peter, and I do agree with most of what you say, including about the Church's institutional response.

Of course many within mainstream Christianity would argue for leniency in a whole range of crimes. I believe (but correct me if this is apocryphal) that in the UK priests are not allowed to do jury service because the assumption is that they will always lean towards leniency and forgiveness and too many criminals will get off.

And yet... when sentencing, don't many jurisdictions also allow character references, both good and bad, including a record of past offences (which is not permitted to be presented until after a guilty verdict has been passed)? Don't we treat a first offender differently from a hardened repeat offender? "Three strikes and you're out" in the USA. Don't we take motive into account? Premeditated crimes are usually treated more seriously than spontaneous ones; what looks like murder can be reduced to manslaughter if it turns out that the killer didn't really know what s/he was doing. Bishops who were hardened scheming defenders of the institution, who deliberately covered up for child rapists knowing that there was a high likelihood of them re-offending and raping more children, might fall under "premeditated"; but are they in the same category as bishops who were rather naive men of their times, who trusted everybody and believed in leniency and forgiveness, who honestly thought that a good confession and a bit of penance would solve the problem, who had absolutely no understanding of sex in any of its incarnations, whether healthy or criminally evil, and who were so focused on doing good things and seeing good in people that they were unable to recognise the degree of evil involved? I know some of these bishops personally. That, of course, doesn't excuse the institutional Church which helped to place them in such a naive position and which institutionalised the cover-ups.

How we treat prominent and popular peoples' faults/crimes would indeed make an interesting study. Winston Churchill was arguably a drunken racist warmonger who presided over some military disasters such as Gallipoli during World War I, but he delivered the goods for the British people during World War II, so his reputation is pretty untouchable. John F Kennedy seems to enjoy similarly whitewashed adulation in the USA. Robert Mugabe has finally lost his gloss, but it took a long time before his reputation as a heroic liberator (despite the infamous massacres in Matabeleland by the 5th Brigade) became overshadowed by his more recent excesses. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela's case is interesting. She was found guilty by a court, but not by public opinion, which not only adored her as a heroine of the liberation struggle, but also understood the trauma that she had been through in which violence was an accepted (and necessary) part of the struggle. People who have spent generations in situations where violence is the norm find it difficult to make the transition to a supposedly peaceful culture, as we see clearly in South Africa and South Sudan, to speak of two places close to home. Is that what Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is? Former soldiers often have the same problem. But where does that leave the ordinary criminal? There's an old joke about the judge asking the prisoner from a poor, deprived and abused background who is clearly guilty if he had anything to say, and he replies, "It was society what done it, your honour". Anyway, I've strayed far from bishops and much of this is probably not directly relevant, but it's just a few more general thoughts on leniency.

#19 John, you are proving me right; i.e. this discussion has the potential to go on a long time.

Unfortunately I do not have that time just at the moment, but I will respond to your comments later. This is a fascinating subject. It's a pity it has been generated by, and is related to, bad deeds.

#19
John, my response to your post will be presented in a number of posts.
that in the UK priests are not allowed to do jury service because…
I’m not aware of that situation. I can see barristers challenging clergy if they think a leaning towards lenience would damage their winning their case.
There is a great book called The Golden Rules of Advocacy. It states the first rule as, “The Law has nothing to do with Justice”. It contends that in the courtroom the barristers job is not to see justice done, but to get twelve people, the jury, to agree with his/her argument; nothing more. Right and wrong do not enter into it. (I was introduced to this book as an aid to giving presentations.)

And yet... when sentencing, don't many jurisdictions also allow character… Don't we treat a first offender differently from a hardened repeat offender?
Yes. I had this explained to me by a colleague who told me about cases relating to TV Licence avoidance. (True story) A licence inspector plucked up the courage to go into a particularly rough block of flats. As he expected, virtually every flat he managed to raise a response from had a TV and no licence. He was delighted his hard work and courage had generated such a catch.
He put through the charges for the offence and was called to court the day the offenders were due in front of the local Justice.
As the cases were called the inspector was asked for his evidence. The Justice listened to the evidence, spoke to the culprit, and in every case found them guilty.
The inspector became very upset that while the Justice was finding the offenders guilty he was only applying the probation act or proposing some community service. No fines were given out.
At lunch the Justice said the court would break for two hours and resume in the afternoon. He thanked the inspector for his help and, in an unguarded comment, the inspector said, “A lot of good it’s doing. They’re all getting off with the probation act.”
The Justice immediately told him he was in contempt and instructed the bailiff to take the inspector into custody and that he would hear his case after lunch.
This caused a stir, and the inspector’s supervisor was contacted by colleagues and told he should get down to the court.
When the court resumed, the Justice spoke to the inspector telling him that the inspector had done his job and done his job well. That job was to uncover the offence, gather evidence and present said evidence in court. He then stated that the sentencing was the job of the Justice and that the justice had to “judge” what the appropriate sentence was taking into account the offenders standard of living, etc… He went on to say that most of the offenders, while guilty of the crime, were all very poor, and most of them were mothers with young children, and that imposing heavy financial penalties would not be appropriate or beneficial, but oppressive.

I see this as relevant to why the background information, or good/bad record of the defendent, is not brought up during the actual assessment of guilt, i.e. to avoid its impacting the judgement of the evidence. On the other hand, these details are relevant when judging the severity of the sentence.

#19
Don't we take motive into account?
Yes. Motive is very important in determining the seriousness of the crime. I think it is particularly relevant in relation to the Church cover up of abuse, because it appears the motive for the cover up was the protection of the system/organisation with little or no consideration given for the victim.
but are they in the same category as bishops who were rather naive men of their times,… and a bit of penance would solve the problem, who had absolutely no understanding of sex in any of its incarnations,… things and seeing good in people that they were unable to recognise the degree of evil involved?
John, I understand you know people you believe to be in this position. I am afraid I believe that anyone as naïve and trusting as you describe is not competent for a leadership role and should never have been appointed as bishop where they are expected to give spiritual and pastoral leadership to real people who have real lives and who come up against the horrors of everyday life everyday. The appointment of such people to a position of leadership is organisational incompetence. Such people should be pitied, but in accepting the role of bishop they have to take on the responsibility the job carries.

I'm off to bed. I'll respond to the rest later, hopefully tomorrow evening.

Good luck!

>21 pgmcc: The Law has nothing to do with Justice... Right and wrong do not enter into it

Reminds me of a particularly cynical US lawyer I came across a few years ago. He handles "no win no fee" cases and I met him in the context of an oil company being sued for human rights abuses. He told me that it's all just a charade to make the public think that justice is being done.

background information, or good/bad record of the defendent... are relevant when judging the severity of the sentence

My point exactly. Many bishops are guilty of covering up, but they may not all merit the same treatment.

>22 pgmcc: it appears the motive for the cover up was the protection of the system/organisation with little or no consideration given for the victim

Well, it certainly appears that way, and that certainly was the case for many of those who covered up, but are you sure that was the motive of all who covered up? I'm not prepared to be quite so dogmatic about motives.

Again, I don't disagree with most of what you say about the institution. There was a great deal of organisational incompetence. But I think that's easy to say with hindsight. It may not have been so obvious during more trusting times. In other contexts I've seen fairly naive, humble and trusting people who turn out to be extremely good leaders, challenging the idea that you have to he a hard-nosed boardroom animal to be a leader. That some of them were handed a situation beyond their abilities to cope with is tragic, but is not necessarily a sign of incompetence. We all have our limits, and many/most leaders, even on the world stage, have proved that they can cock up in extremely difficult situations.

Edited to add a thought that has just come to me: The culpability of an individual is different from the competence of an organisation. It may well be organisational incompetence to appoint leaders who are unable to deal with a difficult issue (although that's easy to say with hindsight about an issue which was unforeseen at the time), but that doesn't actually say anything about the motives of each of those individual bishops. I'm not trying to defend the institutional Church; I am trying to explore the choices made by individuals, flawed individuals, no doubt (like all of us), and how they should be treated.

#23 My point exactly. Many bishops are guilty of covering up, but they may not all merit the same treatment.
The minimum "treatment" is that they should be removed from a position of power where they can influence procedings relating to children. They have failed in their duty of care to vulerable people within a system they are managing.

are you sure that was the motive of all who covered up? I'm not prepared to be quite so dogmatic about motives.

In the majority of the cases exposed in the various reports published to date, we are not talking about one incident. We are talking about repeat offenders being moved around and the case being covered up time and again. We are also talking about a number of offenders within each diocese.

While one can make a case in a once-of occurence for a bishop being sympathetic to someone they believe needs help, i.e. the abuser, it is stretching the point when the sympathy is extended numerous times and to numerous offenders while victims were not simply ignored, but often vilified for making their allegations. For the cover-up approach to be still happening in 2009 (the latest year evidence is available for) stretches credibility.

I agree that many non-Church organisations have incompetent individuals in powerful positions and that they have cocked up many times. However, there are some fundamental differences between the Catholic Church and non-Church organisations; namely:-
- The Church is supposed to be promoting high moral standards - This is the high-horse the Church is sitting on
- When wrong doing is discovered in non-Church organisations it usually results in suspensions during investigations, etc... and often ends in resignations or sackings.

It may not have been so obvious during more trusting times.
It was during these "more trusting times" that some of the worst abuse cases were happening.

In Ireland in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the Catholic faithful would never believe a priest could do any wrong. The priest was the priest and was above reproach. This is why allegations were refuted and ignored. The general public was blind to the offences. This sort of atmosphere would have arisen in an environment where people knew priests whom they believed were doing wonderful work and were good people.

Where a group of people allow heinous crimes to committed and do nothing about it, that is a major problem. The bishops were guilty of this, and the public was guilty of blindly following the clergy.

What many people cannot understand is why the bishops who have been proven to have covered up abuse cases are still in their positions and why the Vatican has not taken action to remove them. This has undermined the credibility of the Catholic Church in Ireland and it does not auger well for its future. The Church has lost relevance for the majority of people in the country and it continues to portray itself as arrogant and uncaring.

I'm afraid the pleas for clemency towards weak bishops does not generate support when there are hundreds of children who have been abused on that bishop's watch.

One point I meant to mention before relating to people ending up in positions for which they are not suited.

It is a failing of traditional organisations, and is still happening, that very often the only way an organisation feels it can reward someone for good work is by promoting them. This leads to situations where a great mechanic is promoted to garage manager or a great nurse is promoted to ward sister.

While these individuals deserve reward and recognition, taking them out of their area or expertise and expecting them to performa in a totally different role is not beneficial to either the organisation or the individual.

Not everyone makes a good manager. Likewise, not ever good clergyman makes a good bishop.

>24 pgmcc: As usual, I don't disagree with most of what you say. Your generalisations are correct, but they remain generalisations: "In the majority of the cases..." We do not and probably never will know the motives of many of the bishops involved, and not all were "repeat cover-uppers".

While nobody disagrees with the horrendous nature of the crimes, methinks I see so much demonisation in the media and in many critics of the Church (and I'm not including you in this) that I wonder whether there isn't just a teeny bit of projection going on there. In my work I deal on a daily basis with people demonising Presdent Omar Hassan al Bashir. I have virtually no sympathy for him and believe that he should answer the war crimes charges which have been levelled against him, but simply demonising him as if he alone is responsible for all the suffering and evil risks missing the fact that there are systematic and organisational issues, and a lot of other individuals, which contribute to the situation by commission, omission and/or collusion. As you say, "Where a group of people allow heinous crimes to committed and do nothing about it, that is a major problem. The bishops were guilty of this, and the public was guilty of blindly following the clergy." Ah, so it wasn't just the bishops who were guilty...

No, John, it wasn't just the bishops, but the bishops were (and still are) in the positions of power within the organisation. Whatsmore, when the facts were coming out they were very slow in reacting in an appropriate manner.

Also, when local church officials tried to implement procedures to address the problem they were blocked by the Vatican. (Archbishop Desmond Connell's guidelines were rejected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it was under control of, who was it, oh yes, Cardinal Ratzinger.)

We do not and probably never will know the motives of many of the bishops involved, and not all were "repeat cover-uppers".

What this whole scandal has brought to light is an organisation that has not prepared its personnel to manage the jobs they have been charged with. The sloth like pace for introducing reforms, and the veil of secrecy over the internal process only helps to alienate the organisation from the people it is supposed to be serving.

Members of the hierarchy, such as Archbishop Dairmuid Martin, who have tried to address the issues in a rapid and effective fashion have been isolated by the Irish bishops and not been supported by the Vatican.

I deal on a daily basis with people demonising Presdent Omar Hassan al Bashir. I have virtually no sympathy for him and believe that he should answer the war crimes charges which have been levelled against him, but simply demonising him as if he alone is responsible for all the suffering and evil risks missing the fact that there are systematic and organisational issues,

I agree wholeheartedly. A local Irish example of this from recent history would be the demonisation of Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein president. In the years running up to the Good Friday Agreement that established a framework for the cessation of paramiltary violence in Ireland, Gerry Adams was walking a very narrow tightrope in his attempts to bring the more beligerant elements of Republicanism towards a peaceful approach to working towards their political goals.

The difference between this example and the Catholic Church's response to the child abuse scandals is that Gerry Adams could be seen to be working towards making things better while the Chatholic Church seemed to take action only when exposed and very often its actions appeared more effective at protecting members of the hierarchy and their position rather than providing solace and comfort to the victims.

There is no perfect solution to this, but there is nothing happening that will prevent people, in Ireland at least, abandoning the Catholic Church in droves. The congregations are becoming smaller and smaller and the average age is climbing rapidly.

>27 pgmcc: I'm trying to work out exactly what is dividing us, as we seem to agree on much. Is it that you are focusing on the Church as an institution, and rightly pointing out all the institutional failings, while I am focusing on individuals? And while I agree with you that the Vatican has done little to improve the situation, I work on a daily basis with people (bishops, priests, religious, laity) who are trying to improve the situation. They recognise that the Vatican is not the Church - we are.

For some reason an anecdote keeps coming to my mind. Around 30 years ago I was working in a very ethnically-mixed inner-city parish in London. At a parish council meeting one evening the chairman of the parish council, an Irishman, boldly announced that when the collection plate was passed round, "the blacks" were stealing from it instead of putting money in. The parish priest handled it very well, I thought. He looked shocked, pointed to a respectable and well-off Indian doctor who was a member of the parish council, and asked, "You mean Dr Andrew is stealing from the collection plate?" "Oh no," came the reply, "Dr Andrew would never do a thing like that". The parish priest continued, "You mean Daphne is stealing?", pointing to a traditionally-built Caribbean matron, a stalwart of the parish, who was also on the parish council. "Oh no, she would never do that". The parish priest continued to name parishioner after parishioner, until it became clear that nobody whom our Irish friend actually knew would do such a thing, but it was the unknown "them" out there who did it.

While of course there is plenty of legitimate criticism of the Church, I think it's easy to continue to attack an anonymous "them" (the Vatican, the Church), but when it comes down to people you actually know, and when you know how hard they are trying to do the right thing, it looks different. The "Meat Loaf" strategy mentioned in >6 John5918: above points out that people have different expectations in terms of dealing with the issue, but there is no doubt that within the Church at large (bishops, priests, religious, laity) there is a great deal of effort and, one would like to think, progress.

John, I don't think there is anything dividing us. I have realised for a while that you have been focusing on individuals and I have been looking at the organisatin, but also I have been thinking of the role of individuals within the organisation.

One of the problems that people here are struggling with is that it was people they knew well, whom they believed couldn't do any wrong, whom they considered good people, who have turned out to be some of the abusers. That shakes confidence in the individuals.

One point that came out in Ireland was the rules that people (clergy) were operating under insisted on silence. No-one seemed to have the power to act. That gave everyone the cover to say nothing. There was an apparent inability or lack of desire to see the big picture.

The efforts that the bishops here have instigated to "improve" things have proven to be ineffectual and, while paying lip service to our being the Church, not the Vatican, they have been aimed at maintaining control and containing criticism. I have attended the local parish meetings and they have been a sham.

It was the same when they introduced a "Women's Forum" to discuss the issues of women in the Church. (My wife has always wanted to be a priest and has been very active in this regard, so I have been exposed to a lot of what has been happening in this area.)

One point that I think we discussed some time ago (maybe a year or two) was the difference between the likes of Ireland and Kenya in terms of the level of social development in the country and what its needs are. The Catholic Church gained a big hold in Ireland during the formative years of the state. It provided the main educational and hospital facilities. It took a lot of people into the religious life. Virtually every family sent someone off to be a priest or a nun. In my father's family nine of the eleven children were sent off to be priests or nuns, my father included. (One remained a priest and three became nuns.) It was the norm to send the children off to the Church.

The Church also provided for orphans and unmarried mothers.

All these institutions were established with the good intentions of helping the poor.

It is these institutions where some of the worst abuse of children took place.

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I suppose all of us are heavily influenced by our experience, no matter how much we try to be objective and weigh all the available information. This is as true of Catholics' attitude towards the Church as it is of some of the atheist-believer debates on LT which seem to be heavily influenced by the more extreme forms of US right-wing evangelical Christianity. I am not Irish and cannot really comprehend that level of domination by the Church, even though I know it intellectually and have many close Irish friends who share about it. I have never been abused. Churches that I work with are trying to deal seriously with clergy sexual abuse, and there is little tolerance any more for cover ups. The new cases that I am personally aware of have been dealt with correctly, and I have been involved in that process. Virtually my entire adult life has been spent working with the Church in Africa, particularly in Sudan and South Sudan, which certainly has its faults and mistakes but which is generally regarded as a force for good because it is in the forefront of delivering justice, peace, health, education, development, humanitarian aid, etc. And when I say "generally regarded as a force for good" I don't just mean by Christians, but by communities on the ground (often including Muslims and followers of African traditional religion), civil society, secular organisations, the UN, local governments, the international community. At the same time I have a strong belief that the Church is not just the Vatican and the hierarchy, it is us. Whatever is done by those in power with vested interests does not take away from that. So all of the above (and more!) is the bias which I bring to any conversation about the Church.

Fundamentalist sect leader jailed for life for sex with child brides (Guardian)

Sentences follow Warren Jeffs's conviction for polygamist marriages with girls as young as 12

>31 John5918: Amen!

Dublin Archdiocese on brink of financial collapse (NCR)

The Dublin Archdiocese is on the brink of financial collapse because of payouts to victims of clergy sexual abuse, according to an internal report.

The report -- prepared by the diocesan Council of Priests and obtained by The Irish Catholic newspaper -- said that "reserves the diocese had built up over decades have been spent on seeking to compensate, somewhat, victims of child sexual abuse by priests"...

The costs, so far, to the archdiocese for settlement of claims regarding child sexual abuse by priests is currently at 13.5 million euros ($20 million)...

"This means the diocese... will not have resources for other projects unless we fundraise for them specifically... This is entirely appropriate. It goes without saying that the diocese must do what it can to support these people in a sensitive way"

Not sex abuse as such, but...

Men arrested on suspicion of blackmailing Italian priests (Guardian)

Men in Italy suspected of demanding money from up to 100 priests in return for keeping quiet about sexual encounters

NYT: Bishop in Missouri Waited Months to Report Priest, Stirring Parishioners’ Rage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/15bishop.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=catholi...

Points:

1. It's a recent case, overturning the notion that both pedophilia and coverups ended years ago, and specifically violating promises, legal and moral. The poison has not been purged from the system—and shall not so long as bishops continue to value the avoidance of scandal over stopping the immoral and disgusting abuse of parishioners.

2. The bishop is a prominent conservative—promoting the Tridentine mass before Benedict remove the Bishops from control over its use—and the pedophile was also known as one, contradicting the nonsense that the abuse issue is some sort of "liberal" problem. In fairness, however, the pedophile wasn't a gay pedophile, apparently only in taking dirty pictures only of girl infants and children. (Whew!)

Bishop Magee responds to Cloyne report on child sex abuse in his diocese.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cloyne-clerical-abuse-coverup-magee-apol...

>35 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. That is quite discouraging. Not so much that a priest committed abuse - human beings will continue to commit crimes whatever happens, despite all the measures in place to try to limit the opportunities for this type of crime - but that a bishop covered it up. I do not know the circumstances of that particular diocese, although from what you say it appears it already has its problems with that particular bishop, but I would still say that the general climate in the Church, at least in my experience, has changed, and cover-ups are far less common now than they were in the past.

>37 John5918:

I'm sure that's true, but fresh cases make you wonder. In particular I wonder how much of the change is real and lasting—taken to heart—and how much is a temporary response to the situation. In a decade's time, when the commotion has died down, will bishops return to their old ways? I don't think we know for certain.

From NCR, a positive step forwards:

O'Malley puts down a new marker on abuse crisis

On Thursday, O'Malley announced that, after "serious and thoughtful consideration and prayer," he was releasing a list of Boston priests and deacons who have either been found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor, or publicly accused of such abuse. The names have been organized into a searchable format, available on the archdiocesan web site. Each entry includes the cleric's current status (suspended, laicized, etc.) and a link to his assignment history.... O'Malley also published a separate list of priests who have been publicly accused but later exonerated, either because the archdiocesan review board found the charge to be unsubstantiated, or because the priest was acquitted in a canonical trial.

Thoughts on Boston archdiocese's decision to name accused priests

I'm in Boston now, reading up on all this, but someone needs to define publicly accused. Does this mean there are others who were merely privately so?

The Cardinal's cover letter makes the criteria reasonably clear. Those not released are those not publicly accused and without findings against them, usually because they were dead before any canonical proceedings, and also because proceedings did not substantiate the accusations. Publicly here means by the Church itself, attorneys for victims, in the news media, or advocacy groups like BishopAccountability.org. So, for instance, if a victim reported past abuse by a now dead priest only to the Church, it won't make the list.

ETA: Or see Michael Rezendes (who won a Pulitzer for reporting on this) 's article in Friday's Globe.

Catholic clergy 'abused children for decades in County Donegal' (Guardian)

Report is expected to claim police were complicit in cover-up of sexual abuse by priests and lay members of the church

Vatican rejects cover-up claims over Cloyne report (BBC)

The Vatican has rejected claims by Irish PM Enda Kenny that it sabotaged efforts by Irish bishops to report child-molesting priests to police...

...Mr Kenny's blistering accusations were based on a misinterpretation of a 1997 Vatican letter expressing "serious reservations" about the Irish bishops' 1996 policy requiring bishops to report abusers to police.

Vatican denies claims of abuse cover-up in Ireland (Guardian)

Officials issue rebuttal of report priests were told to keep quiet about abuse and hits back at criticism by Irish PM

Edited to add second link

They should just stop digging.

A brief diversion into non-clergy child sex abuse:

Convictions for sex offences on children up 60% in six years (BBC)

The number of people convicted of sex offences on children aged under 16 in England and Wales has increased by nearly 60% in six years.

Clerical abusers shielded by ‘cabal’ of protection in church

Russian priest calls for schools to ban classic novels that 'justify paedophilia' (Guardian)

Moscow orthodox church spokesman says Vladimir Nabokov and Gabriel García Márquez 'romanticise perverted passions'

Bishop Finn of Kansas City indicted together with his diocese for failing to report a priest's child-pornography in 2010.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-crime-bishop-idUSTRE79D58J20111014

Another recent case, and from a noted conservative. Goes against the concocted narrative, I know.

>48 timspalding: These are the sort of cases I find very discouraging, because I believe a lot of effort has been put into successfully changing the culture within the Church, at least in jurisdictions with which I am familiar. However each diocese is autonomous to quite a large degree, and it is disappointing that some dioceses have apparently not yet taken this on board. One wonders what are the factors within those particular dioceses - Tim identifies one possibility. But there are criminals in every institution throughout the world, and it is good to see that they are now being caught and prosecuted, whether they are the perpetrator of the original crime or whether they commit the crime of covering up the offence.

Tim identifies one possibility

To be clear, I'm not saying it has anything to do with his being conservative, merely that it's not the opposite. The standard conservative Catholic line in the US is that the priest-abuse scandal is about the decadent sexual ethics of "liberal" Catholics—ascendant a few decades ago, when most of the cases appear to have happened—that is, when it's not about the secular press making stuff up and being hateful.

Tim, it's interesting what you say about the The standard conservative Catholic line in the US . In Ireland, much of the abuse started in the times when there were no "liberal" Catholics. Many of the abusers have been very conservative individuals.

I presume it is the Church honing its message for each constituency. I've seen other organisations to the same thing, even having different slants on their stories for geographies that were actually relatively close to one another.

The Bishop Finn case is an interesting one. The media are making a big deal of it because it's the first time a Bishop has been charged related to covering up such an incident. But it's somewhat unlike the others, which—while often extremely egregious!—dealt with murky issues of oversight and knowledge, and mostly predated required-reporting laws.

This is a much simpler, clear cut example, according to the prosecutors, anyway. It happened in the clear light of understanding, just after Finn had closed a large abuse settlement, during which he promised to report future incidents. On top of that Kansas had implemented a clear-cut reporting law. And it wasn't some sort of murky thing, but clear child-pornographic images on a computer shown to and then in Finn's possession--brought to him by a computer technician who happened onto the images while he was fixing the computer for the priest. On top of this there were some warnings about the priest from others, but the photographs alone make the case, if the situation is not very different from what the prosecution says.

A propos of nothing, I was checking out the dioceses' statement and I would like to know how a polar bear got on the Kansas City's coat of arms!

Ah. Apparently they took it from the seal of the state of Missouri, and it's a grizzly. How it turned white I don't know. Perhaps it's a papal grizzly.

The idea to borrow the bear from the Missouri state seal was apparently originally rejected by Pierre de Chaignon la Rose, who specialized in such things. He wanted to only take the crescent. His Hartford reuses a pun from Oxford.

Awesome. Heraldry today is a remarkable thing—so lovingly elaborated and thought through, and so utterly pointless!

As reported in the UK press (Guardian):

US bishop charged with failing to report abuse

A different type of cover up...

Fr Peter Madden, priest condemned in Baha Mousa abuse probe, fights back (Observer)

Former military chaplain says Sir William Gage's report accusing him of turning blind eye to abuse was mistaken

Vatican investigates Benedictines over abuse cases (NCR)

I suppose I am having real problems with this topic since I tend to see it as yet another crusade against a religious group.

Yes, the Catholic Church has had some problems with pediophiles among its clergy. However, the percentage of Catholic clergy that have been the cause of these problems is a minute fraction of total Catholic clergy.

Yes, the Bishops of various locales have sometimes been hesitant to act decisively or have covered up patterns of abuse by certain Priests when they had multiple witnesses reporting abuse over a prolonged period of time.

Just how this distinguishes the Catholic Church from similar situations in any other major church or minor church or Jewish congregation or the YMCA or any other long standing organization is, however, totally unclear to me. Perhaps someone could explain why Catholics, in particular, are getting all this flack?

>60 lawecon: Thanks, lawecon. Those points have been made more than once in the course of two threads on this issue, but it's good to see it coming from a non-Catholic.

I think your objection has some weight to it. This problem is not by any means unique to the Catholic church.

That said, there are some simple reasons this deserves the attention it's getting:

1. The scale of the abuse seems particularly excessive. In 2003 the church reckoned that fully 7% (one in thirteen) of the diocesan priests in Boston since 1950 were credibly accused of child sexual abuse. Nationwide the number is about 4% (4,392 priests). Some of these priests were no doubt innocent, but there were surely guilty priests that weren't named too, and these numbers are 8 years out of date now. Anyway, 95% of diocese have been affected and a significant percentage of parishes and schools across the nation. The situation in Ireland is even worse and has been a key element in a shockingly swift decline in the church there--weekly mass attendance has fallen from 81% in 1990 to 46% today!

2. The cover-up was very broad, long-lasting and serious. Although different opinions could be had of how high it went, it certainly was endemic in certain dioceses. Boston, for example, was spending tens of millions to settle cases, moving priests around like chess pieces and not reporting anything to the police for years before any of this came out in the media. See any discussion of it.

3. The Catholic Church is--in some basic ways--a unitary structure, with a chain of command going up, and its ministers are lifers. This affects the whole thing. A Baptist preacher who abused children would be fired and when he tried to preach somewhere else the elders would probably get wind of it and not hire him. The Catholic church has an essentially life-long clergy--and a real shortage of them, compared to Protestants--and moves people around as a matter of course and without input from parishioners, past and future. This affected how the whole thing played out, and vastly increased the number of victims. Similarly, because there was a hierarchy there was someone to hold accountable.

4. The Catholic Church has a particularly high profile with regard to its conservative teachings on sexual morality.

5. The Catholic Church has a long-standing (though not original) institutional commitment to a celibate male clergy, which rather affects the reception of its pronouncements on sexual morality by non-Catholics (and some Catholics), and gives a peculiar focus to criticism of the sexual morals of its clergy.

~63

Personally, I think that there is a lot of weight to the argument that an institution that demands male celibracy of its clergy will create bad situations - whether the situations are "preversion" or plain old exploitation of available women under the theory that what is REALLY prohibited is marriage. This is just one of a number of situations I could point to, however, where I think that Christian standards of morality result in preversity of one sort of another because they are too demanding.

That being said, I think that such bad effects of an institution like celibracy of male clergy can be recognized and celibracy still upheld. Bad effects are not to be considered in a vacuum from desirable effects. The Catholic Clergy are suppose to be models of virtue and godliness. There are some, including one of the founders of Christianity, who do not consider sexuality as a virtuous trait. While one may disagree, one cannot quibble overly much with consistency.

I don't have any quarrel with celibacy as such. I just think it should be recognized as a distinct vocation from the vocation to ordained ministry.
I do think Christianity has inherited a lot of unnecessary sexual hang-ups as a result of canonizing (and then divinizing) the writings of its first generation.

~65

Well, that is an, ah, interesting opinion. I'm not quite sure what canonization of scriptures has to do with celibacy, since no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century but people like Tim will tell you that the Christian canon was complete much earlier. (Personally I don't believe that, but it is seemingly popular these days to push back the formation of "the Bible" as early as possible.)

In any case, I suppose that my question is how can one be a Christian and not believe in a canon of Christian scriptures? Yes, if you are Catholic there is Holy Mother Church, but even Holy Mother Church affirms the physical existence of the scriptures - it is just the correct interpretation of them it reserves for itself - along with the right to add other authorities to the mix. If you are some kind of Protestant - except for odd sorts such as Quakers - the Christian scriptures become more essential to your beliefs to totally essential. At least that is what most Protestants say about their beliefs.

Unfortunately it isn't just sexual abuse by priests. Local tribal members are accusing nuns of sexual abuse at the Indian Mission school at St Ignatius, Montana.

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_24ddc6e4-34e6-503...

There have always been stories of disciplinary abuse at this (now defunct) Mission school--perhaps even resulting in deaths of kids there. It's another subject, but definitely related to the overall lack of secular oversite/authority for issues that the church feels should be handled within its confines.

people like Tim will tell you that the Christian canon was complete much earlier

Actually, we were speaking of the Hebrew Scriptures, a very different topic. But the truly unsettling way your posts seemed to be unable to follow arguments and either digest or present facts was definitely why I've stopped trying to discuss them with you.

Tim, I was going to let that topic drop, since I had a somewhat similar view of what you were doing - i.e., making definite statements about what was true in Jesus' day and then retreating on those statements until they amounted to no claim at all.

However, since you want to rewrite what was said, I happened across a passage from a recent book on the development of the Jewish canon a few days after we had that discussion. I will again pull out that volume this weekend and quote it in the original thread. It said exactly what I was saying to you over and over and over again, and, strangely enough, used your "scholarly consensus" language to describe that position.

As for your position on the Christian canon, you made those comments several months prior to our discussion on the Jewish canon - are you now retreating on those statements as well?

> 66. If you are some kind of Protestant - except for odd sorts such as Quakers - the Christian scriptures become more essential to your beliefs to totally essential.

What in the world is this statement supposed to mean? That Quakers are not Protestants? That there are two types of "protestants" -- the "odd" ones (like Quakers) and the "non-odd" ones? If so, which are the "non-odd" ones?

I have the sneaking suspicion that your idea of the "non-odd" ones are all the ones that you can lump into a bucket labeled "fundamentalist, evangelical, literalistic, narrow-minded, and generally beneath contempt." And that the "odd" ones are simply the ones that rise to the level of deserving contempt.

> 62 & 63. Another reason might be that for generations (centuries?) the family & friends of the victims have sided with the abusers.

Well, that is an, ah, interesting opinion. I'm not quite sure what canonization of scriptures has to do with celibacy, since no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century but people like Tim will tell you that the Christian canon was complete much earlier. (Personally I don't believe that, but it is seemingly popular these days to push back the formation of "the Bible" as early as possible.)

It is often believed that the Canon was confirmed at Nicaea, but in fact it was not. It did not need to be, because by the time Nicaea rolled around, it was already a given. Clement was quoting Paul in a way that implied he was taking it as divine writing by the late first century.

But clearly by the time of Nicaea the canon was established. Granted, there were some variants (At Nicaea some bishops were using Judith). As early as 250 Origen was using the same 27 books we use today.

And there are two major branches of Quakers. The split occured over whether scripture contained EVERYTHING one needed to know, and all private revelation was subject to scripture, or whether scripture merely ADDED to private revelation. The evangelical branch of the Quaker church still believes scripture is primary, and the General Conference Quakers are more loosey goosey on it.

>72 Arctic-Stranger:

Lawecon's reply to Josephus pretty much nailing the OT canon in the 1c.—thus demonsrating a solidity of canon centuries before he believed it happened—was that Josephus is to be disregarded because he was a "bad Jew." Origen was a bad Christian, I am going to guess.

no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century

Obviously this is absurd as history, as even a normal distribution of situations would produce some celebrate (sic) clergy, and celibate clergy were praised for it from the start. But also absurd if your words are taken to mean that there were no normative rules on the topic. Look no further than the early 3c. Didascalia Apostolorum, which requires married bishops and their wives to be chaste. It's certainly true that clerical celibacy was not the rule from the start, and never became wholly the rule, but "no church leaders"? Nonsense.

~70

> 66. If you are some kind of Protestant - except for odd sorts such as Quakers - the Christian scriptures become more essential to your beliefs to totally essential.

What in the world is this statement supposed to mean? That Quakers are not Protestants? That there are two types of "protestants" -- the "odd" ones (like Quakers) and the "non-odd" ones? If so, which are the "non-odd" ones?
===========================================

I am sorry, but I can't give you a two sentence education on this topic. I suggest that you do some reading on the evolution of Quakerism - see especially "Hicksities" and, later, "Quaker Universalists" vs., say, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. When you've learned something come back and we can discuss.

=============================================
I have the sneaking suspicion that your idea of the "non-odd" ones are all the ones that you can lump into a bucket labeled "fundamentalist, evangelical, literalistic, narrow-minded, and generally beneath contempt." And that the "odd" ones are simply the ones that rise to the level of
deserving contempt.

==============================================

Strange, it sounds like those are more of your categories.

Well, that is an, ah, interesting opinion. I'm not quite sure what canonization of scriptures has to do with celibacy, since no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century but people like Tim will tell you that the Christian canon was complete much earlier. (Personally I don't believe that, but it is seemingly popular these days to push back the formation of "the Bible" as early as possible.)

It is often believed that the Canon was confirmed at Nicaea, but in fact it was not. It did not need to be, because by the time Nicaea rolled around, it was already a given. Clement was quoting Paul in a way that implied he was taking it as divine writing by the late first century.
==========================

See, there are two of you, except that Tim, on last report, was becoming more equivocal concerning that position.

===========================

And there are two major branches of Quakers. The split occured over whether scripture contained EVERYTHING one needed to know, and all private revelation was subject to scripture, or whether scripture merely ADDED to private revelation. The evangelical branch of the Quaker church still believes scripture is primary, and the General Conference Quakers are more loosey goosey on it.

=========================

Pretty much correct, except that there are also a number of Quakers these days who don't believe that the Scriptures are any more inspired or inspiring than the Mahābhārata. http://www.universalistfriends.org/pdf/quf1984.pdf You might try explaining all of this to jburlinson.

Lawecon's reply to Josephus pretty much nailing the OT canon in the 1c.—thus demonsrating a solidity of canon centuries before he believed it happened—was that Josephus is to be disregarded because he was a "bad Jew."

===================================

Tim likes to mix topics together and create strawmen. The old thread on this topic will be revived this weekend and then anyone who is interested can find out what was really said.

> 74. When you've learned something come back and we can discuss.

I don't know why I should be punished for learning something.

66: I'm not quite sure what canonization of scriptures has to do with celibacy, since no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century

Paul was celibate (and is a major source of Christian sexual doctrine).

my question is how can one be a Christian and not believe in a canon of Christian scriptures?

Do all comments in this group have to be made from a Christian perspective? I made an observation, not a doctrinal point.

If you are some kind of Protestant - except for odd sorts such as Quakers - the Christian scriptures become more essential to your beliefs

All that does is show the comparative unhelpfulness of the label "Protestant" as a classificatory term. Are Liberal Episcopalians "some kind of Protestant"? Maybe I'm a Quaker.

72: And there are two major branches of Quakers.

Is that true globally, or just in the US? I have met an evangelical Quaker in the UK, but he seemed to be a bit of a lone voice.

~73 & 78

All right guys, let me rephrase it: Celibacy was not a required characteristic of being a member of The Church priesthood until the 4th Century CE.

Paul was one of the founders of orthodox Christianity (not Orthodox, orthodox). While he certainly believed himself to be a leader and was admired by many who took to his views, he was not a Priest or a Bishop or a Pope.

I do find it somewhat amusing in Tim's case, however, that he alludes to the organizational diversity of early Christianity to demonstrate that it is not true that "no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century." It might have occurred to him if there was no The Church until the 4th century, but only a variety of warring sects, there was also no leader of the nonexistent Church. But I understand his impulse to score points.

> 66. how can one be a Christian and not believe in a canon of Christian scriptures?

Like anyone else, I can only speak for myself. To me, being a Christian is not about what a person "believes" but is the very personal, direct experience of God -- when the barriers between the human being and God's Universe dissolve, when the blessed experience of love permeates one's entire being, when the sky opens and the dove descends, when the Kingdom of Heaven is realized "within". I've found that the Jesus of the gospels is an excellent exemplar of that experience, although his spirit has been and is present in many, many people, a large number of whom have never heard his name.

If reading scripture helps to achieve, enhance or sustain that experience, well and good. Personally, I find that the canonical gospels work particularly well for me, including the Gospel of Thomas and others of the Gnostic Gospels. There are other non-canonical "texts" that I've found to be especially useful, too many to list, actually, but which would include The Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Writings of Meister Eckhart, Bach's Mass in B Minor, Carl Theodore Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc, Ingmar Bergman's Persona, The Best of S. J. Perelman, the Big Bend country of west Texas, plus any number of very special people too precious to me to single out.

~81

> 66. how can one be a Christian and not believe in a canon of Christian scriptures?

Like anyone else, I can only speak for myself. To me, being a Christian is not about what a person "believes" but is the very personal, direct experience of God -- when the barriers between the human being and God's Universe dissolve, when the blessed experience of love permeates one's entire being, when the sky opens and the dove descends, when the Kingdom of Heaven is realized "within". I've found that the Jesus of the gospels is an excellent exemplar of that experience, although his spirit has been and is present in many, many people, a large number of whom have never heard his name.

===========================================

I am sorry, but I don't quite see how that differentiates you from a mystic of any nonChristian religion or just someone who enjoys good drug trips. The question was "HOW CAN ONE BE A CHRISTIAN and.........." Once again, one might have recourse to a dictionary to figure out what "Christian" means, lest it be thought to mean "really nice guy who has trips involving communion with the Great Spirit."

> 82. My self identification as a Christian means nothing?

> 82. one might have recourse to a dictionary to figure out what "Christian" means, lest it be thought to mean "really nice guy who has trips involving communion with the Great Spirit."

How about the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers: "One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety."?

Or, also from the OED, "A human being, as distinguished from a brute." Actually, that definition is sufficiently broad to include someone like me.

> 83.

My self identification as a Christian means nothing?
=====================================
No more than Walter Mitty's self-identification as a super hero. You see, there is more in the world than just opinions and images, particularly if you are trying to communicate specific meanings in a common language.

> 85. there is more in the world than just opinions and images

Perhaps, but there are opinions and images as well, aren't there? Wouldn't be much of a world without opinions and images.

lawecon at #82: I am sorry, but I don't quite see how that differentiates you from a mystic of any nonChristian religion or just someone who enjoys good drug trips.

In the world outside lawecon's head, it's been generally agreed that "Christians" are those people who self-identify as "Christian". jburlinson obviously doesn't need to justify his belief to any random crank on the internet.

~87

In the world outside lawecon's head, it's been generally agreed that "Christians" are those people who self-identify as "Christian".

=================================

Really, "generally agreed" among whom? Oh, you must mean among atheists such as yourself. I understand. So if Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler or Ghengis Khan "self-identify" as Christians, then they should be regarded as Christians? Amazing idea.

I guess all those purported Christian Churches with their various and somewhat different creeds, http://www.christianbook.com/creeds-of-christendom-3-volumes/philip-schaff/97808... , which they obviously mistakenly believed are different from other belief systems, should be told about this great insight. And certainly the various histories of Christianity, which separate "real" Christianity from heresies that are not truly Christian (like, e.g. gnosticism) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060649526 http://www.readings.com.au/product/9780141021898/diarmaid-macculloch-a-history-o... should be thrown in the trash as being not in accord with Bob's latest insight.

My, what problems could have been solved over the past 2,000 years if only Bob had been born earlier !!!

It's obviously Lawecon's world. Everyone else is just fucking it up.

Really, "generally agreed" among whom?

Oh, among intelligent, thoughtful, tolerant people in the first world, mostly. Obviously, present company excluded.

One might think that an adult convert to a minority religion would be smart enough to realize that people are the religion they say they are.

But apparently not.

(Because, after all, there are plenty of co-religionists who would be happy to question the credentials of those involved in any random person's "conversion". But people get to belong to the religion they assert they are, even without lawecon's approval.)

> 88. So if Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler or Ghengis Khan "self-identify" as Christians, then they should be regarded as Christians?

Actually, Genghis Khan's sons were married to Christian princesses of the Kerait clan who held considerable influence at his court, with the most devout being Sorghaghtani Beki, Genghis' daughter in law by his son Tolui, and mother of Möngke, Kublai Khan, Hulagu Khan and Ariq Boke, all of whom were also married to Christian princesses. Under the Great Khan Mongke, Genghis's grandson, the main religious influence was that of the Nestorians. So Grandpa Genghis could well have self-identified as Christian, and if he had, I certainly wouldn't have told him he was wrong!

Charles Manson not only self identified as Christian, he self identified as Jesus Christ!

And, as for Hitler, you, yourself, on another LT thread, have extolled literature that has linked Nazism with Lutheranism.

#90: Certainly people can lie about their religion; Richard Francis Burton did not become Muslim by claiming to be so to enter Mecca. Ii think it would be more accurate to say that most intelligent, thoughtful, tolerant people are accepting of the self-identification of others, and tend to adopt inclusionary definitions of religions instead of exclusionary.

But people get to belong to the religion they assert they are

That wording rubs me the wrong way. People can identify themselves by whatever religion they want. But when you say "belong to", that implies being part of a group, and that's not so simple. Who are you to oblige the Amish to accept any random person as one of them? Who are you to tell a Jewish rabbi that he must accept the Jews for Jesus as part of the Jewish faith?

As for Christianity, it is a large, sprawling tradition, and I would have no problem accepting e.g. a gnostic as part of it. But if I were to show you my holy books, the Jefferson Bible, Humanistic Buddhism, Enchiridion of Epictetus, and the Principia Discordia, state that I don't believe in the supernatural, and proclaim myself to be a Christian, being an intelligent, thoughtful, tolerant person in the first world, you are quite likely to politely verbally accept that, but I see no reason why you should seriously accept it as a meaningful label, or as anything more than my apparent desire to associate myself with a group I don't share beliefs with.

As for Christianity, it is a large, sprawling tradition, and I would have no problem accepting e.g. a gnostic as part of it.

OK. But I wouldn't ask him to publicly prove it to me to my satisfaction, either.

>"But people get to belong to the religion they assert they are"
>
>That wording rubs me the wrong way. People can identify themselves by whatever religion they want.

OK. Your wording is better. How about: "People can identify themselves by whatever religion they want, without being challenged about their imprecision by any random fool on the internet?"

I do find it somewhat amusing in Tim's case, however, that he alludes to the organizational diversity of early Christianity to demonstrate that it is not true that "no Church leaders were celebrate until the 4th century." It might have occurred to him if there was no The Church until the 4th century, but only a variety of warring sects, there was also no leader of the nonexistent Church. But I understand his impulse to score points.

All right guys, let me rephrase it: Celibacy was not a required characteristic of being a member of The Church priesthood until the 4th Century CE.

Actually this isn't an issue where the church reached agreement on the "required characteristics" in the fourth century either! They still haven't reached agreement, and surely won't in the future either.

I'm not sure what you find amusing about being dead-wrong on fact after fact--although I certainly chuckle at it. And I'm even more amused at your lame attempt to make the false true by asserting there was no church until the fourth century.

As a historical matter, we're in the same territory as canonicity. Whether you know the evidence or not, there's a clear proto-Orthodox church of the bishops from the second century at least. While not universal, the apostolic/episcopal is dominant from an early point, such that even early and radical departures, like Marcion's, assume its structure and succession theories. The rules about that structure is what we're talking about here, not the diversity about unrelated topics within that diversity.

How can you be right? I see two ways. First, by one definiton, "the Church" is a abstract concept believers are not required to accept. So go crazy. Second, you can decide to assert that any amount of conceptual diversity nulls the existence of an institution that claims to be the right answer. One could, for example, say there is no church now, for surely the percentage of Christians not affiliated with either the Catholic church or other apostolic churches is higher now than it was at the start of the 4c. But this is a tiddlywinks line of argument.

people are the religion they say they are

I'm going to split the difference on this one. We're in an argument about words, not the things they can refer to. In different contexts religions are best defined in different ways. Sometimes the best way will be rough historical continuity, sometimes the content of their ideas, sometimes their nominal membership in an organization, sometimes their membership according to someone else's opinion, and sometimes self-identification.

To take a limit case, a Muslim who claims that, because Islam reveres Jesus, Muslims are the real and authentic Christians, is certainly entitled to his opinion. Most Christians will resist this notion, as will historians. Ultimately, God will sort the situation out or, if there is no God, it will remain forever unsorted. But even God won't solve an issue that is terminological not real. After all, do any "Christians" go to Hell? It's a meaningless question, since it depends on the context by which you've applied the term.

To take a limit case, a Muslim who claims that, because Islam reveres Jesus, Muslims are the real and authentic Christians, is certainly entitled to his opinion.

"Jews for Jesus", too.

people are the religion they say they are

It's certainly true to the first approximation. And the correct answer to someone who asserts "I believe in X" is never some stranger on the internet replying "No you don't, because you haven't shown that to MY satisfaction."

I've seen multiple conversations on LT where both timspalding AND johnthefireman have been told by others that they can't possibly be "proper" Catholics. To which the only possible reply is: Oh, shut up.

(And I suppose in the case of an authoritarian/hierarchical religion, the leader of the faith is allowed to rule on who is and who isn't an acceptable True Believer. THAT case doesn't apply to conversation on the internet either.)

~91
Actually, Genghis Khan's sons were married to Christian princesses of the Kerait clan who held considerable influence at his court, with the most devout being Sorghaghtani Beki, Genghis' daughter in law by his son Tolui, and mother of Möngke, Kublai Khan, Hulagu Khan and Ariq Boke, all of whom were also married to Christian princesses. Under the Great Khan Mongke, Genghis's grandson, the main religious influence was that of the Nestorians. So Grandpa Genghis could well have self-identified as Christian, and if he had, I certainly wouldn't have told him he was wrong!

Charles Manson not only self identified as Christian, he self identified as Jesus Christ!

And, as for Hitler, you, yourself, on another LT thread, have extolled literature that has linked Nazism with Lutheranism.
===========================================

So, there you have it. You are obviously in appropriate company. All Christians together!! You should be proud !! And if that is what you want, why should I stand in your way? JBurlinson, a brother in Christ to Genghis Khan, Charles Manson and Adoph Hitler.

Let's see if anyone wants to opt out of those associations.

Had too much to drink again, Jesse? Nothing worse than a stupidly mean drunk

Ahh, ad hominem.

#97: I've never seen anyone advocate the no true Scotsman fallacy before. Use it, yes, but advocate its use? Sorry, lawecon, but any reasonable definition of Christian includes people you don't want to be associated with. (Not that Christian is special in that manner in any way.)

> 97. You mean you accept my word when I say that Hitler, Manson and Genghis were Christians, but challenge me when I say that I'm a Christian? That's just, just ... odd.

Of course, Jesus caught a lot of flack for hanging with some pretty unsavory types, so I guess it comes with the territory.

"Jews for Jesus", too.

I think going to disagree on that. It's anachronistic, but there definitely were Christians who considered themselves both Jews and Christians. I'm not entirely convinced the modern group is to be entirely scored in this regard. While Jews may be offended at their identification, it's a sincere one.

I don't think we're disagreeing: at least to a first approximation, people are what they say they are. If others chime up with "But, but, you don't meet MY criteria", well, tough.

Yes, you're right. I picked the Muslim "Christian" as something of a limit case, which Jews for Jesus aren't quite. I thought you were agreeing with the similarity, not the conclusion. And/or I was reading you too quickly...

I don't entirely forswear the practice of saying that someone or some group is not X. But when you do so you've got to be clear just what context and criteria are. When you give your criteria there's a basis for judging the question, and we can debate whether the criteria are correct ones. That is, if a Fundamentalist says that I'm not a Christian because I'm read the Bible in non-fundamentalist ways, well, at least we've stated a reason, and it's not really one I can argue with. When a Catholic denies I'm one, because I question a teaching that is hardly part of the infallible deposit of faith, it's worth discussing whether such a test stands up to historical and doctrinal scrutiny.

Ok. Works for me.

#102: I have a friend who says he's a kitsune. Do you accept that? I'm usually willing to give a pass to religious pronouncements. I do wonder if that's part and parcel of trivializing religion. It means that religion can not be something sealed by external act (like baptism, communion, circumcision, or Islamic salah), not defined by belief or acceptance of creed, but just something you get by personal proclamation.

#103: I wonder if your distinction isn't determined by your religion. You'll let Jews who believe that Jesus is the completion of Judaism still be Jews, but Christians who believe that Mohammed is the completion of Christianity not be considered Christians.

I have a friend who says he's a kitsune. Do you accept that?

Accept it? how is it any of my business?

I wonder if your distinction isn't determined by your religion. You'll let Jews who believe that Jesus is the completion of Judaism still be Jews, but Christians who believe that Mohammed is the completion of Christianity not be considered Christians.

It's a fair point. But:

Christianity grew very directly out of Judaism, and separated from it slowly and not finally for hundreds of years. Jesus was a Jew, and—so far as we can tell—continued to obey the Law all his earthly life. Early Christians were all Jews, and continued to think of themselves as such. The early decades of the new religion were all about whether it was a new religion or not, with Jewish Christians continuing to obey the law, go to synagogue regularly, sacrifice at the Temple, etc.

This interpretation of Christianity as fully Jewish was dealt a very severe blow by the destruction of Jerusalem, and was eventually excluded from Jewish synagogues too, but, as I recall, we have good evidence Jewish Christians still lasted about 500 years longer, and left a distinctive stamp on some Christian communities, such as the Syrian Orthodox and especially the St. Thomas Christians in India. Other Christians have "rediscovered" their Jewishness periodically throughout Christian history, probably without much contact with Jews, including the Ethiopian church, which probably also resulted in a truly Jewish community, the Falashas, emerging out of Christianity back into Judaism! (This is an interpretation of the Falasha data, which is not settled.)

There is nothing whatsoever like this in Muslim tradition's approach to Christianity.

Lastly, in addition to being a religion, Judaism thinks of itself as a people. So one can be Jewish and Christian in that sense. There is no Islamic people, so in that sense it would be like someone asserting that, although an Arab, they were also a Christian. That, of course, is not a problem for Christianity at all.

~106

I have a friend who says he is Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and presumably is willing to act accordingly. How is that any of our business?

~107

Lastly, in addition to being a religion, Judaism thinks of itself as a people. So one can be Jewish and Christian in that sense.

=====================================================

Ah, no, probably one can't. That issue was pretty much settled when Israel's Law of Return was amended to explicitly address that issue.

>109 lawecon:

Not everyone in the world feels that a law of the Israeli state is the final word on the topic.

Indeed, it wasn't intended to be the final word on the religious question, but to address the issue and danger of persecution, which tended to care about different things than Jewish religious law. For example, traditional Jewish religious law doesn't consider someone to be a Jew if only their father was validly Jewish, even if they were raised entirely in the faith. But the Law of Return cares, because such an individual is very likely to be considered a Jew by antisemitic mobs, etc. At the other end, mainstream Jewish religious law considers a Jew to be a Jew whether or not they convert to another religion. So long as you are the descendant of an unbroken line of Jews, you don't even need to know you are a Jew to be a Jew. Such people—unknowing Jews and converts—do not, however, get a right of return, because they are unlikely to be persecuted for their Judaism.

Not everyone in the world feels that a law of the Israeli state is the final word on the topic.

Indeed, it wasn't intended to be the final word on the religious question,...

===========================================

I don't know what you mean "the religious question," but what you were talking about was the Jewish People, which is an ethnic question, not a religious question.

===========================================

For example, traditional Jewish religious law doesn't consider someone to be a Jew if only their father was validly Jewish, even if they were raised entirely in the faith. But the Law of Return cares, because such an individual is very likely to be considered a Jew by antisemitic mobs, etc.

===========================================

Actually Biblical Jewish Law traced "being a Jew" through the father. So does Reform and, de facto, Conservatism. But there is that Haredi/Orthodox viewpoint from you again, Tim. I guess I should start defining Catholicism in terms of my Traditionalist Catholic priest client. But then, of course the Holy See would be vacant.

> 108. I have a friend who says he is Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and presumably is willing to act accordingly. How is that any of our business?

I'd like a new motorcycle -- Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Classic LT. Could you ask your friend to fix that up for me? Thanks.

I love it when ignorant non-Christians tell Christians what they have to believe.

I don't know what you mean "the religious question," but what you were talking about was the Jewish People, which is an ethnic question, not a religious question.

Right. And the Law of Return was intended to answer the ethnic question OBVIOUSLY. Nor traditional religious opinion. Nobody sober, in their right mind would imagine that someone switches from being ethnically Jewish to be not ethnically Jewish by changing their opinion about Jesus. Such stupidities weren't entertained by me. Clearly, for the benefit of you, they should have been.

~112

I thought you weren't responding to my posts. That didn't last nearly long enough.

In any case, no my friend will not give you a new motorcyle unless you worship him. In the interim he may smite you. After all, he is Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Hence, he can do whatever he wants. But you shouldn't care, because those are merely his religious beliefs.

~113

And I love it when Tim tells a Jew what Jews believe or should believe or do believe. It is just, well, MARVELOUS.

~114

I have no idea what you just said, and I doubt you do either.

You were talking about the Jewish People IN ADDITION TO the Jewish religion. (See your Post #107) Although making this distinction, a valid distinction, you also made the incorrect point that someone can be a member of the Jewish People and still Christian.

I pointed out that "the Jewish People" is usually conceived of as an ethnic, not a religious concept (which was in full accord with your initial distinction). I implied that since People is one synonym for Nation that the supreme law of the Jewish Nation should define who is a member of the Jewish People.

The Supreme Law of Israel was deliberately amended in 1962 to provide that any Jew could immigrate to Israel AND THAT "A JEW" WAS DEFINED AS "4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." A similar change was made to the Nationality Law, which, after amendment, read "as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."

These changes were made in response to the case of a man who was born of a Jewish mother, was culturally Jewish, was a major aid to Jews during the Holocaust, but who, after having been sheltered by Dominicians, converted to Catholicism and became a Dominican Priest. This man moved to Israel because he identified as a Jew, but he remained a Catholic, a Dominican Priest and typically wore a cassock with a large silver cross on this chest.

When he was denied the designation of "Jewish" on his identity card he sued. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that this man was not a Jew according to Israeli law, and the Kinesset later made the above amendments to the fundamental law of Israel.

In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that "Messianic Jews" i.e., those who had coverted to Christianity of a certain sort, were also not Jews for purposes of Jewish Nationhood aka Personhood, albeit they were indisputably born of Jewish mothers.

You then proceeded to talk about the Halachic definition of "who is a Jew," which, strangely enough, was contrary to the distinction you were originally making in Post #107.

I can only conclude that you are very uninformed or confused about this topic - just as you appear to be very confused in believing that there is only one type of Jewish Law "from a religious perspective" i.e., Halacha. That is not true and never has been true. The only Jews that will tell you such a thing are Haredi cultists.

=======================

Later,

Sorry, I had my facts wrong. Brother Oswald Rufeisen became a Carmelite Brother, not a Dominician Priest. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/twersky080598.html

lawecon at #108: I have a friend who says he is Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and presumably is willing to act accordingly. How is that any of our business?

Is there any point at all to this post, except to childishly parrot and mock prosfilaes' question at #105?

On the other hand....
"I have a friend who says he is Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and presumably is willing to act accordingly."

No one who has read lawecon's posting history on LT has any doubt at all that this is completely true.

~118

Actually, Bob, it was meant to mock your posts 87, 93 and 106. But then, if you believe you are Bob Newhart who am I to disagree? It is not as if there is some definition of Bob Newhart apart from belief.

And I love it when Tim tells a Jew what Jews believe or should believe or do believe. It is just, well, MARVELOUS.

Your posts are almost universally irrational and bizzare. I could say anything whatsoever and get some nonsense denial from you, followed by an assertion I said something I didn't.

As is well illustrated by the posts subsequent to the one you just quoted. The posts where you say one thing, then another completely different thing, and then will undoubtedly conclude that you never in fact said the original thing.

Actually, Bob, it was meant to mock your posts 87, 93 and 106.

Well, then, like all of your posts, it failed to communicate successfully. And #119 is incoherent even for lawecon.

Look at this very thread: when three people in a row tell you directly that you are not making any sense, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your communication strategy.

No, everyone else is wrong.

> 117. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that this man was not a Jew according to Israeli law, and the Kinesset later made the above amendments to the fundamental law of Israel.

If the Supreme Court had already ruled that the man was not a Jew, why did the Kinesset (sic?) have to make the amendments?

> 117. That is not true and never has been true. The only Jews that will tell you such a thing are Haredi cultists.

Since when did the ultra-orthodox surrender the right to tell people things? Especially since the "Majority of Jews will be Ultra-Orthodox by 2050" according to the University of Manchester.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/archive/list/item/?id=2932&year=200...

Wikipedia: Who is a Jew: Jewish by birth

According to halakha, to determine a person's Jewish status (Hebrew: yuhasin) one needs to consider the status of both parents. If both parents are Jewish then their child will also be considered Jewish, and the child takes the status of the father (e.g., as a kohen). If either parent is subject to a genealogical disability (e.g., is a mamzer) then the child is also subject to that disability. If one of the parents is not Jewish, the rule is that the child takes the status of the mother (Kiddushin 66b, Shulchan Aruch, EH 4:19). The ruling is derived from various sources including Deuteronomy 7:1-5, Leviticus 24:10, Ezra 10:2-3. Accordingly, if the mother is Jewish, so is her child, and if she is not Jewish, neither is her child considered Jewish. The child can be considered Jewish only by a process of conversion to Judaism, and the child is also freed from any disabilities and special status to which the father may have been subject (e.g., being a mamzer or kohen) under Jewish law.

All branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism today maintain that the halakhic rules (i.e. matrilineal descent) are valid and binding. Reform and Liberal Judaism do not accept the halakhic rules as binding, and accept a child of one Jewish parent, whether father or mother, as Jewish if the parents raise the child as a Jew and the child fosters a Jewish identity, noting that "in the Bible the line always followed the father, including the cases of Joseph and Moses, who married into non-Israelite priestly families." Reform rabbis in North America have set standards by which a person with one Jewish parent is considered a Jew if there have been "appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people," such as a Jewish naming ceremony, brit milah, or a bar or bat mitzvah ceremony. Because the Reform Movement uses a guidelines approach and its standards are not considered binding, they are understood and applied in different ways by different Reform rabbis and individual Reform Jews. The principle, in general, is understood to require a Jewish upbringing. The Reform movement's standard states that "for those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi". Advocates of patrilineal descent point to Genesis 48:15-20 and Deuteronomy 10:15."

Again, we have something commonly accepted treated as something outrageous. Everyone knows that most Jews today, excluding Reform, reckon Judaism from the mother(1). As Wikipedia puts it "All branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism today maintain that the halakhic rules (i.e. matrilineal descent) are valid and binding." But in your mind this isn't merely a generalization with exceptions, or something that developed historically but wasn't inevitable, it's flat-out untrue, a sign of my weird education (I am "very uninformed or confused"), and a belief reserved for "Haredi cultists."

This has happened again and again. Obvious things are crazy nonsense to you. I really despair of trying to talk about anything with someone so prone to turning things on their head and then loudly proclaiming that only ignoramuses and cultists don't have toenails for hair.

---

1. It was news to me that Karaite Judaism does not do so, but as they comprise less than 50,000 souls, it's only slightly more pertinent to a generalization than whatever the Samaritans think.

Well, Tim, you've convinced me that you can read Wilkipedia and are an expert on The Halacha. (Note the capital "T," it is an important distinction in your view of the world. After all, there is Only One Halacha, given to Moses at Sinai, etc.) With such depth of knowledge of True Judaism, you might want to apply at your local Haredi Shul for a Proper Conversion and get those dual refrigerators and dual stoves installed in your kitchen. Certainly, no one who has any other orientation in Judaism would be quite so appreciative of your Real And Deep Knowledge of Judaism. You should be among The Only True Jews, who have the Only True view of Judaism and Real Halacha.

(Indeed, you might really consider that alternative, since the equally Real Catholics, in the Traditionalist Movement, would certainly reject you as Catholic. One cannot, after all, accept the heretical views originating in Vatican II still hold oneself out as a Real Catholic. Yawn.)

Of course, on the original issue, you have, once again, dodged the topic that you yourself introduced - the difference between "being Jewish" under some definition of Halacha and being a member of the Jewish People. But nevermind, it is clear that you really didn't mean to raise that issue and didn't understand the distinction you yourself seemed to be making.

~124

> 117. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that this man was not a Jew according to Israeli law, and the Kinesset later made the above amendments to the fundamental law of Israel.

If the Supreme Court had already ruled that the man was not a Jew, why did the Kinesset (sic?) have to make the amendments?

==================================================

Ah, statutes do not rewrite themselves. If the USSC determines that an existing U.S. statute is incomplete or contradicts the fundamental law of the U.S., said statute is usually not left on the books as it is. It is either removed entirely (not something that is particularly possible for the Law of Return or the Nationality Law) or is rewritten to conform to the fundamental law.

Incidentally, was that a real question, or are you now just carping at everything?

> 117. That is not true and never has been true. The only Jews that will tell you such a thing are Haredi cultists.

Since when did the ultra-orthodox surrender the right to tell people things?

===================================

No one has "surrendered" any rights, whatever that means. The ultra-orthodox are always telling other Jews the one and only way to do things. After all, they are The Experts on the "only authentic" way to be Jewish. (Of course they all tell you somewhat different things, but the constant is that they are Real Jews and everyone else is a Heretic or nonHalachic or just a plain old Goy pretending to be a Jew.)

The Haredim will, undoubtedly, keep doing that so long as there are Haredim. It is their distinguishing characteristic. The difference is that the rest of we Jews, as Jewish education increases, are increasing starting to see the holes and are starting, more and more, to laugh rather than have the traditional inferiority complex around those who espouse a variety of Judaism that has existed for, gasp, a whole 200 years. Black Hats just aren't the mystical symbols they use to be.

Well, Tim, you've convinced me that you can read Wilkipedia

Oh, nonsense. Wikipedia says the same thing any general reference work would. And yes, if lots of general reference books say water is wet, you don't get to attack me as ignorant and the produce of hydrological "cultists" for believing it.

Again and again you deny what are simple, basic facts about the world. If get down dirty into the evidence for them--as with the canonicity of the Hebrew scriptures--you dodge the evidence or, with Josephus, make up laughable reasons why it doesn't apply, then provide no good evidence of your own. When I go for the other end, and quote you reference sources, you attack me as someone who only reads reference sources.

Shall we set some terms? How about I find six other general reference sources that state what everyone else but you agrees is the predominant non-Reform understanding? Would that satisfy? Six? Fuck, make it 20--and you look for them.

> 128. Incidentally, was that a real question, or are you now just carping at everything?

Both?

Actually, it was a real question. I don't know much about the case in question, other than the description you've provided in # 117, which makes it appear that the Supreme Court made a ruling prior to the law being articulated, and that the amendments were made in order to bolster the rationale for the Court's opinion.

~130

Tim, I gave you a scholarly reference source on the canonization of the Jewish Bible in Second Temple times. You have never responded. Why should I waste time finding 6 references on another widely known topic when you just pretend that the post isn't there when I find them?

Now I will take enough time to suggest to you two principally Orthodox sources that may disabuse you of some of your misconceptions - I doubt it, because you have swallowed the Haredi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and obviously don't know enough Jews to find out how misconceived it is - but just in case: http://www.hartmaninstitute.com/ http://www.valleybeitmidrash.org/

~131

I am sorry, I can't help you further. It is quite clear to me. There was a Law of Return and Nationality Law. Under a "plain meaning" of what they said this plaintiff should have had no problem being recognized as a Jew. His being a Brother in a Christian Order didn't appear to be a problem in the original "plain meaning" of those laws. His going around in a cassock with a big silver cross hanging on his chest didn't appear to be a problem. The original formulation of the Law of Return didn't refer to those attributes of someone seeking to be recognized as a Jew. But this applicant to be recognized as a Jew did have a problem. The authorities who administered such things as identification cards and applications for citizenry on the basis of being a Jew denied him status as a Jew. He appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court. The Israeli Supreme Court said he wasn't a Jew, albeit he was born of Jewish parents, was in many ways culturally Jewish, saved Jews during the holocaust and subsequently immigrated to Israel because he wanted to affirm his link to the Jewish People. Both the majority and the dissent wrote blistering opinions which you can find on line if you bother. The Law of Return and National Law were amended to explicitly reflect the majority's ruling, since under the Israeli political order that is the supreme law of the Jewish Nation. That ruling was later reaffirmed in a case involving a similar appeal by "Messianic Jews" (i.e., Jews that had converted to Christianity). They were held to no longer be Jews under Israeli law.

I don't see what is confusing you. Further, I don't understand why you wouldn't understand why a statute would be amended that was originally unclear or incomplete when the supreme authority entrusted with interpreting a nation's law has spoken. Are you confused about the relationship between fundamental law (what we in the U.S. call constitutional law) and statutory law? Are you confused about what happens when a statute contradicts or doesn't correctly express fundamental law?

Just what were you and are you saying?

Now I will take enough time to suggest to you two principally Orthodox sources that may disabuse you of some of your misconceptions - I doubt it, because you have swallowed the Haredi propaganda hook, line, and sinker and obviously don't know enough Jews to find out how misconceived it is

I'm glad you can find people who agree with you. I don't doubt it. But "the haredi line" is also the mainstream of what non-Reform Jews believe. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about what normative Judaism is. You're a Jew, and I'm not. But I'm not going to be told I'm an idiot for knowing what every reasonable reference work on the topic knows. It's just dumb.

I renew my proposal. What number of standard reference works will solve this for you? Three? Six? Ten? Name it and we'll dig it up for you. You need to set some bounds on how out of touch your ideas can get. I propose that bound. If I can find 10 standard encyclopedias that agree that matrilineal descent is the normal standard among non-Reform Jews, surely you'll quit it.

And I renew my answer. My time is valuable. We had quite a discussion about the "familiarity of Jesus and the Apostles with the Jewish Bible." Several days ago I gave you a quotation from a recent scholarly volume on the formation of the Jewish canon that fully supported the position I was taking in that discussion and was contrary to the position you were taking. It was a particularly amusing quotation since it invoked the magic words "scholarly consensus" that you had several times relied on in stating your position. Your reaction? Nothing. Nilch. Total silence.

I am not going to waste further time playing a citation game with you. Of course you can find plenty of citations for your position on this topic, because many of the stupider Orthodox take that position. Of course I can find plenty of citations for the position I'm taking, because most of the educated rabbinate, even many among the Orthodox, take that position. While that should lead you to understand that your position is not the ONE SOLE RIGHT POSITION and that there is considerable doubt that it has any foundation in Jewish "theology" or history, it won't. You have already demonstrated it won't. Hence, I'm not wasting my time playing that game with you.

Further, although I am not Reform, have never been Reform and I don't imagine that I will be in the future, your snide dismissal of the halachic position of Reform authorities is rather disgusting. Have you read the Reform Responsa on this question? No, of course you haven't. Once again, you sound like some ultra-Orthodox sectarian trying to read everyone but your own small cult out of "true Judaism." Once again, you don't seem to understand that Judaism has ALWAYS been diverse, and that Orthodoxy was a reaction to Reform and didn't exist as "the traditional Jewish position since Sinai" before there was Reform.

But then, perhaps I should take a page from your songbook and should be lecturing you on how wrong your form of Roman Catholicism really is and how the Holy See is vacant due to similar heresy. I know at least as much about those topics as you know about the ones you've been pontificating upon (pun intended).

The problem with the Bible issue is that it turns on terms and on things we said. I never asserted there was a complete, universal and final "canon" in the final sense you want to push it to. There were clearly differences between Jews (eg., Alexandria vs. Palestine) as to some of the less "core" books. Indeed, as you will recall, the first thing I said was:

"Yes, it's clear that the canon wasn't final in Jesus' time. But, whether you were in Alexandria or Palestine, there was very broad agreement on a bunch of texts that were definitely considered to be the inspired word of God. When Jesus refers to Genesis or Deuteronomy, the Psalms or Isaiah there would have been broad agreement that these were all divinely inspired texts."

So, you can define our little disagreement away provided you push "Bible" to mean whatever you want it to mean--a degree of cohesion, unity, finality and exclusivity that I don't think intelligent Jews, and certainly I, don't agree with even today. The fact is, there's ample evidence that the "bunch" (chosen to avoid your bete noire, "canon") was very close in Jesus' time to what it is today, and that they understood this "bunch" as having the status of scripture.

On the topic of consensus non-Reform views on matrilineal descent, when you refuse to consider standard reference sources so much that you refuse to consider the matter even if I find 20 reference sources, and instead send me a top-level link to some synagogue you like in that Mecca of Jewish learning, Phoenix, Arizona.... well, you have problems of evidence!

But then, perhaps I should take a page from your songbook and should be lecturing you on how wrong your form of Roman Catholicism really is and how the Holy See is vacant due to similar heresy.

If you find that in 20 or even 1 standard reference sources, I'd at least stop accusing you of being an ignoramus, captive to cultists!

But you example is certainly well-chosen. Outside of Catholicism, there is no way of deciding whether the Pope is really God's choice or a usurper. You can't answer that any more than I can answer who is properly considered a religious Jew. But we can both investigate and discuss the empirical question of common opinion among Jews and Catholics on these respective topics. When you do so you will find that sedevacantists are a small minority—as are non-Reform Jews who don't follow the matrilineal principle.

So, you can define our little disagreement away provided you push "Bible" to mean whatever you want it to mean...

=========================================

I wanted it to mean what the scholarly authorities on late Second Temple Judaism mean when they use the term "Bible". That is also a part of the quotation I gave you. You, obviously, wanted, or now want, the term "Bible" to mean something else. That is fine, but when you depart from common usage in a technical field you should say so. You should particularly say so when someone is stating the scholarly position using the scholarly terminology and you are disagreeing with them. (See above quotations from Humpty Dumpty)

===========================================

The issue you are talking about is one of the central issues in Judaism for at least the past 30 years. It has to do with what Greenberg has argued is the central issue for the continuing existence of one Jewish people going forward in history. If the position you are taking is the One True Position, right now, approximately 25-30% of nonOrthodox Jews are mamzerut (not only not Jewish, but those who a Jew cannot marry because they were born of a relationship forbidden by the Torah),That position is therefore halachically unacceptable under the rules of interpretation of Traditional Judaism. It is, as you seem to realize, also not the official position of Reform or the defacto position of Conservative Judaism.

It is further inaccurate historically if it is being portrayed as the "from Sinai" halachic position. Historically Jews traced their lineage through the father until sometime in the early middle ages. The main form of conversion to Judaism for centuries was for a Gentile woman to marry into "the tribe" (i.e., marry a Jewish man). That was the case in Biblical times. It appears to have been the case in Second Temple times, although the evidence is less clear there. Matriliner descent only clearly became the norm after the Third Revolt and the universal devastation of the Jewish people within the Roman Empire.

A lot of this, again, Tim, has to do with the simplistic view you have of halacha. Traditional Jews, Jews before the creation of Reform and the subsequent creation of the Orthodox reaction to Reform, did not have the sort of "one true position" that is common to the Christian mind. Their halacha is expressed as follows: "This and this and this (referring to alternative and often contrary teachings of various rabbis) are the words of the Living God." Only when certain Eastern European Jews felt threatened by the rise of Reform in Germany did positions harden into a Christian style search for absolutes.
===============================================

Finally, Tim, I am afraid that you simply don't understand how to handle scholarly sources. This is particularly a problem in an area like Judaism, where the divisions are already very deep and the stakes are getting higher and higher. There are certain sources that are certainly prestigious. But for you to describe any source as "authoritative" or a "standard reference" is simply to display ignorance about how standards are arrived at in these fields. There isn't an Inquisition in Judaism to give a publication a nihil obstat.

IMHO the best you can do with respect to authoritativeness in publications is to cite to scholarly sources from academic religious studies programs. But even there you have to look at the resumes of the authors and the academic institution in question. Yeshiva University is an academic source. So is Columbia. Want to bet that publications from those institutions will say somewhat different things? Why is it that Jews from virtually every branch of Judaism make fun of Artscroll publications, but they almost all use, say, the English translations of the BT and JT published by Artscroll?

As someone who use to be in academics I am less in tune with "standard sources" than you seem to be. "Standard sources" with the correct orientation is what you refer undergraduates to when you want to convince them of the rightness of a given position. They are not what those in the field rely upon. To use a somewhat different but similar example: in twenty-five years of practice, I have seen Blacks Dictionary cited only twice in a brief to a court. But I would bet that you think that is a "standard legal authority."

>57 John5918: US bishop charged with failing to report abuse

A neighboring diocese just turned in a priest for a credible charge that happened 30 years ago. It made me wonder if the recent law enforcement action against bishop who failed to report months-old issue is having a salutary effect. (Also, did 30-year old evidence just come to light?? Is there a statute of limitations? What kind of evidence is credible after 30 years?) Creepy to have neighboring priests accused though (not yet) anyone I know.

>138 margd:

There is probably a statue of limitations—something like five years after the victim turns 18, as I believe it is in NY. But not every state has that, and it can be waived in some circumstances, like continuing threats if the person goes to the police. But I don't think the church should exactly consider that in making it's determination to remove them from the priesthood.

>138 margd: did 30-year old evidence just come to light?

What often happens is that the victim only feels able to make a complaint many years later.

> 138. did 30-year old evidence just come to light?? Is there a statute of limitations? What kind of evidence is credible after 30 years?

Perhaps the crime of child abuse falls outside the statute of limitations, but the ongoing conspiracy to cover it up is still continuing, and that's what the Church authorities are worried about.

Child abuse generally has a much longer statute of limitations than most other crimes. In terms of internal denominational policy, the Presbyterian Church took away the statute of limitations for child abuse. (Just so you know, that is for disciplining ministers, not for legal action. We are bound to report any incidents to the proper authorities, and let them deal with the legal issues.)

BTW in many states, Alaska included, clergy are considered to be mandated reporters, ie, if we suspect abuse we are required to report it. The policy we had at our church was that the minister could be informed, but the proper authorities would be notified. In the one incident that I know of (involving two kids and no adult) I was told after the police were called, as per our policy.

Ireland to close embassies to Vatican, Iran and E Timor (BBC)

The Irish Republic has decided to close its embassies to the Vatican and two other nations on cost-saving grounds...

But Dublin stressed that the move was not related to a clerical child abuse row between Ireland and the Holy See.

It's often interesting to see Al Jazeera's take on news stories such as this.

#143: I find it interesting that both articles focused on the Vatican, and ignored the fact that they were closing an embassy in the world's 17th largest nation (by population), and one that seems in particular need of bridges to the outside world. Why not, say, Lestho? There has to be some other reason then just money in Iran's case. I can buy Ireland and Vatican being money; I mean, they aren't actually getting rid of the Vatican embassy, they're getting rid of the Italian embassy and painting "Italy" over "Vatican" on the signs on the Vatican embassy. I don't understand "Gilmore said, suggesting that a diplomat based in another European country would be assigned the Vatican brief too." Is there are a reason not to say "the diplomat to Italy would be assigned..." here?

>144 prosfilaes: I agree with you on Iran. It seems a new crisis is creeping up there, with Israel and the USA apparently moving towards a military option.

I'm not sure they're saying it will be the Italian one. Didn't they say non-resident? I'm guessing it gets assigned to a desk in Dublin, no?

I wonder if Iran will close its embassy in Ireland.

Monks told to hand over running of school where children were abused (Guardian)

Governance of St Benedict's Catholic school by abbey is outdated and unacceptable, independent inquiry finds

Monks Lose Control Of Abuse Scandal School (Sky News)

And an institution which is not the Catholic Church:

Paterno retiring at end of season amid Penn St. child sex scandal (CNN)

The Penn State thing is a good comparandum simply because, when the stakes are high and everyone thinks you're a saint, it increases the tendency not to report problems.

Penn State football has all the attributes of a religion....

Fugitive Catholic priest urged to turn himself in (Guardian)

Arrest warrant issued for former abbot of Ealing abbey as report into child abuse scandal at school run by monks is published

Penn State investigated by US Education Department (Guardian)

Investigation launched to discover whether university failed to report incidents of sexual abuse on campus

Doesn't it all boil down to the fact that the victims are, or are perceived to be, powerless? That, in any given situation involving two or more human beings, the person in the dominant position (bigger, stronger, richer, older {up to a point}, etc.) inevitably will assert that dominance, often in the most overt manner possible?

This simple truth, observable on any schoolyard, seems so obvious that it's shocking when people profess to be shocked by the latest instance.

Edited to delete unintended touchstone.

That, in any given situation involving two or more human beings, the person in the dominant position (bigger, stronger, richer, older {up to a point}, etc.) inevitably will assert that dominance, often in the most overt manner possible?

That would seem to be up to you.

That would seem to be up to you.

Not if you're the victim.

Penn State football has all the attributes of a religion....

====================================================

Which, in certain mindsets, means that it must promote a variety of undesirable behaviors - completely unlike music obsession or bibliomania or any other emphasis in living.

Well, we seem to have now gotten away from the "child abusers are all Catholic Priests" line - albeit with no assistance from those posters who profess to be Catholics. But I thought that this news article might assist those who have a feel for the real reason behind this phenomenon - a reason that Tim touches on above in Post # 148. http://forward.com/articles/145969/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&amp...

> 155. Well, we seem to have now gotten away from the "child abusers are all Catholic Priests" line

Having diligently studied this entire thread, I fail to find anyone who has made the claim that "child abusers are all Catholic Priests" or even to detect that message as a significant sub-text.

True, many of the posts have dealt with the subject of Catholic priests; I'll admit that. However, that fact does not surprise me as much as it does you, considering that the title of the thread is "Clergy sexual abuse scandal".

#156: Ooh, a challenge. Well, we are all masters of our own personal religion, so we're all priests, and catholic is all-encompassing, so naturally we're all Catholic priests, and thus child abusers are all Catholic priests.

> 157. Good points. But, still, I must take exception with # 155, in that only now with your new post, has someone actually stated outright that "child abusers are all Catholic Priests".

So, I'm afraid my "challenge," if that's what it was, still stands. Let's set all posts prior to # 156 as BC ("before challenge"), and try to find any that make the claim in question.

Dutch church victims to get payouts based on level of abuse suffered (Guardian)

Support group Hulp Recht says scheme offers greater awards to victims of paedophile Catholic priests than going to court

Not all child molesters are catholic priests. That's ridiculous. No one has said that.

The fact is however that thousands of child molesters happen to be catholic priests. With dozens of bishops covering up their crimes. One of whom went on to be the present pope.

That is the sick reality of the matter that will never go away, no matter how much hand-waving is done or how much hot air is pumped up the public's collective skirts.

I can be agnostic about some unknown and unknowable god. But a catholic god? There is no such thing - absolutely.

Unless, of course, god = satan.

Absolutely right regarding the ridiculousness of the claim that all child molesters are Catholic Priests. For instance, one of the most prominent and successful atheists of the 20th Century was a child molester. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/node/50563

> 161. Absolutely right regarding the ridiculousness of the claim that all child molesters are Catholic Priests.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place -- post # 155?

> 162

Of course, jb. I mean, really.

Saying all child molesters are catholic priests just because some catholic priests are child molesters is as stupid as insinuating that all atheists are murdering commie dictators because some atheists were murdering commie dictators.

But everyone on this thread am smart, just like me, thank Allah, and would never make such a stupid, stupid insinuation.

At least I don't think so. I.e., I have some people here on ignore and have no idea what kind of mindf#ck garbage they might be spewing.

Saying all child molesters are catholic priests just because some catholic priests are child molesters is as stupid as insinuating that all atheists are murdering commie dictators because some atheists were murdering commie dictators.

=======================================

Ah, then, since murdering perverse commie dictators weren't murdering perverse commie dictators because they were atheists, it would be equally true that child buggering Catholic Priests aren't child buggerers because they are Catholic Priests.
Got it.
Thanks for the logic.
One regularly reading your rants on how religion is the source of all irrationality and evil might have mistakenly guessed you would have come to a different conclusion.

Abuse claims hit Syracuse University basketball coach (BBC)

Third US University Hit By Child Abuse Claims (Sky News)

Disgraced US cardinal Bernard Law quits Rome post (Guardian)

Bernard Law, who quit as Boston archbishop in 2002 over US priest child abuse scandal, resigns from subsequent Vatican job

New Plan To Tackle Child Sex Grooming Gangs (Sky News)

"This country (UK) has to wake up to the fact that children are being sexually abused in far greater numbers than was ever imagined. It could be going on in every type of community and in every part of the country. Too many local areas have failed to uncover the true extent of child sexual exploitation in their communities and failed to properly support victims and their families."

>166 John5918:

Good riddance to Law. He did do a fair amount of good during the busing days, but he's got a lot to answer for, and the reassignment was unjust. The article wasn't clear, however, if he resigned because he was 80 or just resigned. I seems like the former, but that he wasn't accorded much respect in it.

Yeah, automatic retirement.

http://www.necn.com/11/21/11/Retired-in-disgrace-ex-Boston-archbishop/landing_ne...

167: I think that the clear assessment of sexual abuse in the UK (and certainly public perception) was seriously impaired by the South Ronaldsay case, in which the combination of an imaginative child and an obsessive social worker resulted in several children being forcibly removed from their families and dramatic accusations against a local minister. The whole thing appears to have been a figment of the imagination. (Fortunately no one was actually burnt at the stake, which is probably what would have happened in previous centuries.)

Amnesty calls for inquiry into child sex abuse by clergy in Northern Ireland (Guardian)

Call for action comes after publication of internal Catholic Church reports that find it guilty of inaction over paedophile priests

Was King James a "child molester", or just a man with a weakness for pretty young boys? He was the head of the entire English Church. In God's Secretaries: the Making of the King James Bible, Adam Nicholson hints at a Jacobean court, dominated by homoerotic culture and masculine patronage networks.

Well, if King James was a child molester he must have been a member of the clergy. Read the title of this thread.

Does being head of the Anglican Church mean he would have been a member of the clergy by default? Don't think this is necessarily the case.

>174 pgmcc:

Yeah, definitely not the case.

>173 lawecon: Read the title of this thread

lawecon, I think you're being unduly cynical. This thread (and the preceding one) frequently make the points that a very small percentage of clergy are sexual abusers or coverers-up, and that there is plenty of sexual abuse and covering up elsewhere in society. Nevertheless sexual abuse by clergy is a subset of sexual abuse which is of great interest to the Church, and apparently to the rest of society too.

I am sure it is of interest to the respective Church, since they are going to be legally liable for the foreseeable acts of their employees and negligent supervision of their employees.

Just why there is this particular social obsession with such acts by clergy, rather than recognizing that this and other sorts of abuse are a typical pattern whenever naive people are taught to blindly trust one of their fellows as "G-d like" and unquestionable is beyond me.

Perhaps I am "unduly cynical" by believing that human beings abuse authority unless they are strictly monitored and held to account for their misdeeds. But I doubt it.

Not a small part of this is the "yuck" factor. Unprepossessing types like most catholic priests and sixty-something college coaches are one thing. Celebrity types like Michael Jackson (although of course he did come in for some jokes at his expense by the late-night comedians) and Edward James Olmos are something different altogether.

I think you're right that certain perverts are more offensive than others, at least to certain people. After all, the professions of these people are per se offensive to the same certain peoples' prejudices. Like, ah, the fact that anyone would become a clergy person is very offensive to certain people...... It therefore follows that the one offensive characteristic should be touted to besmirch the other offensive characteristic.

Of course, then, there are certain religious people who want to contend that such an association is not being touted at all. That this constant refrain is merely accidental, because, ah, because they are the equivalent of Uncle Toms.

Isn't one of the reasons why clergy sex abuse is considered so abhorrent (by those inside the Church as well as outside) that it involves abuse of a position of both power and trust? And then it is compounded by the institutional cover up that allows the perpetrator to maintain that position of power and trust and to continue offending?

This in no way denies that it is only a very small percentage of clergy involved in either abuse or cover up, nor that the same thing happens elsewhere, but it does make it, well, of interest.

>177 lawecon: Again, you are very cynical if you think that the Church is only concerned because of legal liability. The vast majority of both priests and ordinary Catholics whom I know are outraged because the crimes and cover-ups are outrageous, not because of legal liability.

>180 John5918:

The church is also concerned because it's been such bad PR, and caused both finances and numbers to fall.

>181 timspalding: All of that is true, Tim, particularly in some quarters of the hierarchy, but I still would not want to minimise the fact that most Catholics (who are the Church) are outraged because of the crimes, not because of any of these effects.

Isn't one of the reasons why clergy sex abuse is considered so abhorrent (by those inside the Church as well as outside) that it involves abuse of a position of both power and trust?

======================================

There are many positions of power and trust. Coach, policeman, parole officer, teacher, many many others. However, certain people are always surprised when nonclergy grossly abuse their positions, but never very surprised when clergy do so. Further, the apologies by the believers in these other institutions seem somewhat less effusive than the apologies of certain religious laity. I wonder why that is.........

=========================================

>177 lawecon: Again, you are very cynical if you think that the Church is only concerned because of legal liability. The vast majority of both priests and ordinary Catholics whom I know are outraged because the crimes and cover-ups are outrageous, not because of legal liability.

=========================================

Again, you need to learn how to read, since I never said "only concerned." Further, you need to get some perspective if you believe that economic and legal liability reasons have nothing to do with it.

>177 lawecon: You're very combative, lawecon. I don't think either of us said "exclusively". I did not say clergy are the only ones who abuse power and indeed I was thinking of doctors, police and teachers as I wrote. I did not say that the other reasons have nothing to do with it; indeed in >182 John5918: I said, "All of that is true". But I stand by my statement that, The vast majority of both priests and ordinary Catholics whom I know are outraged because the crimes and cover-ups are outrageous, not because of legal liability.

Banksy wades into Catholic church sex abuse scandal with new sculpture (Guardian)

Cardinal Sin is the bust of a priest with its face sawn off and replaced with a mosaic of bathroom tiles

~184

I am not interested in this "I never said" gaime. What I said and what you then wrongly contended I said is clear above, But just this once.Here is exactly what you said:

">177 lawecon: Again, you are very cynical if you think that the Church is only concerned because of legal liability."

You see the phrase "the Church is only concerned". Those are your words characterizing what I had said. Or, in this case, what I never said. It is now somewhat strange that you claim that "I don't think either of us said 'exclusively'...."

So apparently you need to both learn how to read and to remember what you just wrote.

"

>186 lawecon: Thank you very much for your advice, lawecon. I'm probably past the age where my reading skills will ever improve and definitely past the age where there's any hope of my memory improving (quite the opposite), so your advice is a little redundant. One thing I do agree with you on is that we end this, "I said, I didn't say" dynamic and get back to the substance of the thread.

Thousands abused in Dutch Catholic institutions - report (BBC)

> 188

Summary of the report:
http://www.commissiedeetman.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrap...

also:
"the cardinal knew":
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/12/16/deetman-kerk-wist-van-misbruik

And a non-clergy variant:

Dozens arrested in Europe over child pornography ring (BBC)

The Dutch story on CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/16/world/europe/netherlands-church-sex-abuse/inde...

The BBC report on the Dutch story includes the note that one in five children in institutions were abused, regardless of whether or not they were Catholic-run.

German priest admits 280 counts of sexual abuse (BBC)

Exactly 280? Who was counting?

280 cases of admitting--the cases of sexual abuse could be higher. Presumably whoever was listening was counting?

>195 MyopicBookworm: Police and prosecutors? Presumably they need to charge him with a specific number of offences.

Catholic monks faced child abuse investigation, school admits (Guardian)

Downside School apologises to parents over revelations resulting from police examination of school records

Child sexual exploitation is 'hidden issue', children's minister warns (Guardian)

Thousands of children in the UK are being sexually exploited...

"My strong sense is that this country is waking up to the fact young people are being sexually exploited not in the dozens or the hundreds, but very probably the thousands... For too long, child sexual exploitation has been a hidden issue"...

Ann Marie Carrie, chief executive of Barnardo's, said child exploitation did not fit one model of behaviour or victim. "In a way the media has been guilty of promoting only one model, when there have been many"...

Hm - maybe the Church was simply the first (and juiciest) "one model" to be named in recognising this hidden problem, exposing it and beginning to deal with it?

#199: I'm not sure being the first and juiciest target for resolving any injustice is a good thing.

>200 prosfilaes: Did I say it was? Recognising that it is a broader problem in society than just the Church in no way reduces the seriousness or abhorrence of its occurrence in the Church.

Diarmuid Martin claims Irish Catholicism at 'breaking point' (Guardian)

Archbishop of Dublin is to make a frank admission about church's failings over the child sex abuse scandals

Vatican reports on Irish child abuse scandals (BBC)

The Vatican has expressed its "dismay and betrayal" at the "sinful and criminal acts" by Catholic clergy guilty of child abuse across Ireland.

#203: And also The Visitators also encountered a certain tendency, not dominant but nevertheless fairly widespread among priests, religious and laity, to hold theological opinions at variance with the teachings of the Magisterium, this serious situation requires particular attention. Even given that this is the Catholic Church, you'd think they'd learn to keep things separate so it doesn't invite comparisons about what's really important to the Catholic Church.

Rome prosecutors link Vatican cleric to 29-year mystery of missing girl (Guardian)

Investigators say senior Catholic has evidence about 1983 disappearance of 15-year-old Emanuela Orlandi

Spain nun in court over babies 'stolen' under Franco (BBC)

Thousands of babies are thought to have been taken from parents in hospitals and given to other families during the Franco dictatorship and later... The practice is believed to have been motivated by a desire to remove children from "undesirable" left-wing parents and give them to "approved" right-wing families.

Different.

Vatican laicizes Canadian bishop convicted of importing child porn (NCR)

Northern Ireland inquiry into clerical child abuse may fail, warns Amnesty (Guardian)

Stormont-led investigation into abuse by Catholic clergy lacks powers to subpoena and seize church files, says charity

Bishops' accountability still missing from abuse scandal (NCR)

MPs to investigate deputy children's commissioner's claims (BBC)

MPs are to investigate the sexual exploitation of children, after an expert warned abuse was taking place "all over the country".

redoubling prayer for this world of woe.

US Catholic priest convicted of sex abuse cover-up (BBC)

In looking something up for another thread, I came across this interesting quote in Psychology Today:

the report states that clergy sexual abuse of minors in the American Catholic Church is a historical problem with the vast majority of cases occurring from the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's. You might find surprising that 94% of all cases occurred before 1990 and that 70% of clergy offenders were ordained as priests before 1970.

It refers to The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010: A Report Presented to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by the John Jay College Research Team, which is online here.

>212 John5918:

That's the general feeling, but it's worth noting that there's an inherent selection bias. If you investigated familial sexual abuse you'd also find it tailed off very recently too. Recent abuse doesn't get reported at the same rates; you have to wait for people to grow up. Similarly, cases before 1950 aren't necessarily showing up because someone abused in 1940 is going to be elderly, and someone abused in the 1930s may well be dead. As for the priests who did it, they're certainly dead. How many elderly people would come forward to accuse a long-dead priest of abusing them? Sexual abuse in the Catholic church is not a new story. We can't know the degree to which 16th or 18th century accusations were true, but the ingredients were there—eg., clerical respect, bishops concerned to avoid scandal, etc.—so it's hard to believe it didn't happen.

Former priest charged for child sex attacks (Guardian)

Anglican Canon Gordon Rideout accused of 38 offences over 11-year period between 1962 and 1973, against 18 children

Kansas City diocese ordered to hand over documents in sexual misconduct case (NCR)

The first Catholic bishop criminally charged in the decades-long clergy sex abuse crisis will have to grant prosecutors access to a range of files regarding his diocese's response to previous accusations of clergy abuse

Sorry to be covering old ground in this thread and its predecessor, but I have a question.

Is there some sort of official program offered by the Catholic Church for children who have been victims of abuse? Specifically, is there a consensus on how to counsel a child on how to reconcile their abuse with the teachings of their Church or how to understand their faith in light of their experiences?

I found a reference to what appears to be a program called "Teaching Touching Safety," but it seems to be oriented more towards parents on how to get children to open up. Pointers for parents when a child reports sex abuse

It doesn't really seem to be geared toward how children can come to terms with the abuse in light of their religion.

It would seem to me that undergoing abuse at the hands of a priest would be a big problem for a person who wants to remain a good Catholic.

>216 jburlinson: I don't think that there is a centralised programme because, contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church is not as centralised as people think it is. Each bishop has a great deal of autonomy in his own diocese. Decisions may be made at national level by the bishops' conference, although it's still very variable how seriously each diocese takes it. So the answer is probably no in terms of consensus, and I must say I haven't heard of any attempts to form consensus on this.

> 217. That's interesting and, to be honest, not what I was expecting. I'm not a Catholic, so don't really know how things work, but I would have thought that someone would have developed some sort of program for spiritual healing.

While on the subject, I did run across some research that suggested that victims who have received psychotherapy report "significantly less trust in the priesthood, Church, and in their relationship to God than the 'no treatment' group". Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 19, Issue 12, December 1995.

This, also, is a little surprising -- though perhaps it shouldn't be, since the psychotherapy seems to have been administered in a wholly secular clinical environment. This study is a little old, and I wonder how things might have changed in the last 20 years.

>216 jburlinson:

Interesting question. I don't know. (But I suspect John is right about there being nothing national or international.) I suspect any such effort would be done one-on-one. But I don't know. That's got to be one hell of a hard conversation.

There certainly are programs for Catholics who want to have some active role in church activities. If your task involves any contact with children, you are mandated to do such a course. Employees too, of course.

>218 jburlinson:

Interesting. But it might just be that confronting it surfaces those feelings, which you otherwise suppress, not that the psychotherapist is telling you it's God's fault.

>218 jburlinson: Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many individual priests, nuns, lay counsellors and church-related institutes doing good work in terms of both spiritual and psychological healing, but I'm not aware of any "consensus". I could be wrong, and I'll ask around.

I came across another study done only a few years after the first one I mentioned. Interesting findings:

"Results: A history of sexual abuse was related to significantly greater spiritual injury and lower stability of spiritual behaviors and experiences, but not to overall rate of current religious behavior. Surprisingly, abuse was related to increased frequency of prayer and of "spiritual experience." Multivariate analyses indicate that the effect size is relatively small and the type of abuse was less important than the presence of any form of abuse."

The long-term impact of child abuse on religious behavior and spirituality in men.

Revealed: the scale of sexual abuse by police officers (Guardian)

Those targeted by the officers are predominantly women, but in some cases are children and young people, many of them vulnerable victims of crime.

Monsignor William Lynn seeks release from prison over cover-up conviction (Guardian)

Lynn, who was found guilty of child endangerment, plans appeal on the grounds that he never 'supervised' individual children

>216 jburlinson:-221 I just got a response from a priest in South Africa who specialises in this field:

As yet there is no consensus as to a 'treatment of choice' or 'best practice' intervention formulation specifically for victims/survivors of childhood sexual abuse by clergy. I attach some articles which help provide a context for treatment as well as identify specific treatment needs and focused interventions. While many of the needs of survivors of clergy perpetrated abuse are similar to 'general population' survivors, treatment needs do differ, especially in the area of spiritual trauma.

I'll have a look through the articles he attached and let you know if there's anything relevant to this conversation.

> 224. Thanks. I appreciate your taking the time.

Not church...

Care home reforms aim to halt child sex abuse (BBC)

The government has published plans to combat the sexual exploitation of children in care homes in England by gangs.

Again, not church:

Five men found guilty of paying for sexual services of children (Guardian)

"It is important that people realise that men who abuse children come from all walks of life, backgrounds and cultures."

Again, not church:

Report paints grim picture of England's most troubled families (Guardian)

"The prevalence of child sexual and physical abuse and sometimes child rape was striking and shocking," the report said.

"It became clear that in many of these families the abuse of children by in many cases parents, siblings, half-siblings and extended family and friends was a factor in their dysfunction.

"Some discussed it as if as it was almost expected and just a part of what they had experienced in life. Children often had not been protected by their parents.

"In many of the families the sexual abuse repeated itself in the next generation ... "

#228: And? One hand, it's not as much the abuse as the institutional cover-up; on another, there are few positions so trusted and so intimate as a priest; and on the third hand, showing that it's common is a way to minimize, not the way of accepting responsibility.

>229 prosfilaes: I think trying to understand the whole picture of child sexual abuse is useful if one wants to minimise it. There has been plenty of study on the problems associated with it in the Church, and measures have been taken to address that particular issue. Child sexual abuse in society in general appears to have been less noticed.

I would also suggest that there are few positions "so trusted and so intimate" as a parent.

Edited to add: Very few children are now at risk from priests in UK, as new protocols have been put in place in an attempt to prevent clergy abuse and cover-ups. However this report suggests that children in at least 120,000 families are at risk of sexual abuse from their own families. I'm not sure what your objection is to raising awareness about that. Hopefully some action will be taken within society, just as action is already being taken within the Church. While the Church must of course continue to accept responsibility for its past crimes, it seems to me it would be irresponsible not to address the more common forms of sexual abuse which are going on here and now.

In my experience at the hospital and in the Church I ran into one person who was abused by a priest. I cannot count how many people I met who were abused by family members. I mean that literally. I lost count at around 50, and that was early in my career.

I'm not sure what your objection is to raising awareness about that.

That posting "Again, not church:" in a thread labeled "Clergy sexual abuse scandal" is not raising awareness. It's the wrong phrasing in the wrong place.

Child sexual abuse in society in general appears to have been less noticed.

I doubt it. You've filtered the news through your bias; note that how much publicity the Michael Jackson sex abuses charges got.

Hopefully some action will be taken within society, just as action is already being taken within the Church.

States in the US have had mandated reporter laws since the 1960s. I don't believe any state has ever encouraged principals and other people in authority to cover up suspected child abusers and transfer to other schools. Again, this comes off as defensive of the Catholic Church, not informative about child abuse.

>232 prosfilaes: Well, when you perceive something as "defensive" it might indeed be defensive, or it might be that "You've filtered the news through your bias". Could it not be that we both have such biases?

It's precisely because this is in a thread entitled "Clergy sexual abuse scandal" that I noted that this post is not church. Not sure how that is the wrong phrasing in the wrong place.

Of course Michael Jackson got a lot of publicity; he was a celebrity. I think the whole point of the UK report was that child abuse in dysfunctional families doesn't get that sort of attention. I don't know the laws on mandatory reporting in the UK, but I think the report appears to find that 120,000 or so families are slipping through the net, law or no law.

#233: It's precisely because this is in a thread entitled "Clergy sexual abuse scandal" that I noted that this post is not church. Not sure how that is the wrong phrasing in the wrong place.

Because it's in the thread titled "Clergy sexual abuse scandal"? Should I take one of those "no atheist atrocities! yes, there are!" threads and post regular links to non-atheist atrocities?

Of course Michael Jackson got a lot of publicity; he was a celebrity.

Roughly maybe one-thousandth the celebrity of the Catholic Church. What do you want from the news?

I think the whole point of the UK report was that child abuse in dysfunctional families doesn't get that sort of attention.

Routine daily things don't make news, what a surprise.

Returning to Hopefully some action will be taken within society, just as action is already being taken within the Church, I'd like to point that the problem of a Church unwilling to work with legitimate authority to police the actions of its members (whom it holds in a tighter relationship then just about any in modern society short of marriage) is entirely distinct from the problems of a society already trying to respond to every abuse allegation reported to it, that is designed to allow its members way more freedom then the Church allows its priests.

>234 prosfilaes: Not really sure what most of your points are about, so I won't respond to most of them.

a Church unwilling to work with legitimate authority to police the actions of its members

I think you'll find that generally it is willing to work with legitimate authority. That last paragraph makes a number of assumptions which may or may not be accurate.

TheKeyAuthor
I'll be accused of self-promotion but I really do touch on the cover-up side of things in my book The Key?. I treat the cover-up part as an overall problem with powerful institutions. You see it time and time again, whether it be a church, government or legal grouping.

Those groups have practised all sorts of child abuse at all sorts of levels for centuries. Power corrupts and then consumes those exposed to it. But the church has truly lost its way. "Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer" is an ancient religious text which is also inscribed on the world's most famous criminal court. It seems all have forgotten the message. The Key? warns of the consequences of that, but I fear no one will take notice.

>236 TheKeyAuthor: It seems all have forgotten the message... but I fear no one will take notice.

I think it's worth pointing out again that it was a very small number of people who committed abuse and a very small number who covered it up, not "all". This is in no way intended to minimise how appalling both crimes are. However the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics (not "no one") have not "forgotten the message", have "taken notice", and are doing the best they can to clean up their Church.

True. But the trouble is those involved lead the church. Both the heads of the church in Britain and Ireland were involved in cover-ups (moving "priests" to other parishes) before they were promoted to the top job. That implies those in the Vatican neither had any interest in defending the children of the poor, nor punishing the wrongdoers. It indicates that the culture at the Vatican is not one of Christian values.

Such goings on are classic indicators of corrupt organisations. There comes a tipping point when the elite are so corrupt that you can't get on in the group unless you join them and leave your morals and ethics at the door.

But of course, it is worse for the Vatican as they are supposed to promote Christian values and follow scripture. When they don't even follow the simple "rules" ("Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer"), then it undermines the very foundation of the church. That then brings into question the existence of God and whether or not the church is a con. It certainly falls into the hands of non-believers and to a lesser extent non-Christians.

What the Vatican have done here is to seriously undermine Christianity full-stop. They are the wrongdoers and need to be punished. If that had gone on in some obscure sect, its leaders would be jailed and the organisation banned. That won't happen with the Vatican because the other groups (governments) are equally corrupt and they would be worried they might suffer the same fate.

It's not pleasant to realise you are being fed an illusion. Human beings need social order and submit to authority tamely. That is why people won't accept the truth. But we really should embrace it, so we can change the system. If we don't, then we will all suffer, and that includes all our children.

>238 TheKeyAuthor: I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. However the Vatican is not the Church, we are. All over the world bishops' conferences are initiating protocols to deal with clergy sex abuse and prevent cover ups. Catholics are now aware of the issue and in a sense have been empowered (not necessarily by the Vatican but by themselves, the media, society and other factors) to ensure that it doesn't happen on a large scale again. All indications are that both the number of cases of abuse and of cover up have dropped dramatically in the last ten years. We are not "being fed an illusion" simply because some of those in power are abusing their power. We know about it and we continue to work for our Church, not for leaders with vested interests.

~239
"I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. However the Vatican is not the Church, we are."

Do you think that the Vatican would agree with that?

It sounds an awful lot like "The President, Congress, the Supremes, the federal bureaucracy and the Army, Navy and Air Force aren't the United States. The People are the United States!" Of course, we know that this is false. The former acting in unison, or even in a substantial majority, can do whatever they damned well want to do. There aren't any "the People," just like, I would bet, there isn't any "the Church," in the way you would like that term understood.

>240 lawecon: I don't think it's the same thing at all. As Hitler (or was it Stalin?) is purported to have noticed, the pope has no army. The Vatican has no way of forcing people to do what it wants, and has only the authority which people give it. The Vatican is not the Church.

Edited to add: Do you think that the Vatican would agree with that?

I think they would, as that is the theology of the Church. Of course they might want to interpret it differently to the rest of us.

>238 TheKeyAuthor:

There's certainly much truth in what you say, but you're a little careless in equating the "heads of the church in Britain and Ireland" with "the Vatican." Strictly speaking, they are different things, and different people. There is a very sharp distinction between the bishops "out there" and the Roman curia. And the curia is hardly monolithic either. Whatever one may say about the sum total of his efforts, Ratzinger waged a long and lonely battle against Marcial Degollado, the horrible Mexican priest and sexual predator, but Degollado was too strongly protected by other departments and individuals, and Ratzinger wasn't able to do much until he became pope.

I think they would, as that is the theology of the Church. Of course they might want to interpret it differently to the rest of us.

Yeah, the theology is pretty clear on this point.

More generally, the Vatican is a weird animal. The Pope is effectively a monarch, and claims authority few monarchs in history have claimed. But the Vatican bureaucracy, the curia, is minuscule by modern standards—a few hundred people running a 1.2 billion member institution—and bound by rules and traditions that severely restrict the exercise of power and its speed. It's a very odd combination.

#240 I go along with that. Ordinary people (Catholics, American citizens) may officially be the group, but they have very limited power and almost none individually. Those that exercise power and influence within the group (elected or otherwise) are supposed to reflect its virtues and abide by its rules. Any departure from those virtues and rules is a reflection on the whole group.

In that sense, the Vatican, Pope, curia and heads of the church are one and the same: they are the power elite. The same can be said of "The President, Congress, the Supremes, the federal bureaucracy" etc.

When I refer to the church, I don't mean the ordinary, powerless individuals who do stick to the rules and virtues. And I have a feeling I am not alone in that simple classification. After all, when US and British troops are deployed to some far-flung theatre of war (or peace), that action will be regarded as a reflection on America and Britain, on Americans and Brits and sometimes on Christians.

I become wary when I see terminology that fragments a group as it adds confusion and deflects criticism. The various sub-groups will then blame each other. Ultimately, no one is punished.

I will never forget the tears in the eyes on an Irish mother when she explained that after her son had plucked up the courage to inform the police he had been abused by a "priest" and they wouldn't bring charges, he committed suicide.

Not only did he suffer horrific abuse as a child, but also made to suffer the torture of injustice for years until he couldn't take it any more. When the church leaders embarked on a cover-up, did it not cross their minds that they were inflicting torture so intense it could lead to death? The answer is surely yes.

For an institution that prizes life so highly, I find it incredible that this went on. The abuse is indefensible, but the cover-up and denial of justice cannot be tolerated either. If an ordinary member of the public knew and looked after someone who had committed an atrocious crime, the authorities would charge them with aiding and abetting, and obstruction of justice type charges.

Is there not a case that such officials should be charged with obstruction of justice, torture and manslaughter charges? I don't see that the authorities have much appetite for that and the reasons are similarly depressing: they will be concerned that such a fate will befall them one day.

Impunity is a real problem in the western world. If the authorities (groups controlling the public) are involved abusing, torturing, abducting or even killing children, they will cover it up and get away with it. There is a week left on my members giveaway, and as it is not fully subscribed, you can get a free eBook. My case is just one of many that go on in the US, Britain and elsewhere around the world. So, the next time you hear your country's leaders explaining your troops are being killed to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law, then contact their office, refer to my book or similar story, and ask to bring the troops back so they can do the same in your own country.

>244 TheKeyAuthor: Again, I don't disagree with much of what you say, but all I can say is that this is not the Catholic Church that I experience on a day to day basis. I see a Church of bishops, priests and laity who are trying to come to terms with the abuse carried out and covered up by a few, and trying to ensure that it won't happen again. The Vatican is not actually a day to day factor for most Catholics, probably far less so than a government for its citizens.

On the action or inaction by the civil authorities, well, that's for them to answer. Many of the clergy perpetrators of crimes against children have now been identified and charged. There have been a handful of cases against those who covered up (one or two have been noted on this thread and its predecessor), but there appears to be little appetite so far on the part of the civil authorities to follow up this particular aspect of the crime.

Well, when Christians talk about "the Church," we're using a theological category, not a political one. Which is not to necessarily to deny that there might exist a political entity which might be identified as "the Church" and describe the hierarchy of the bishops, etc. But when a Roman Catholic talks about "the Church," she is--or should be--talking about the mystical Body of Christ, that which subsists in that which is governed by the Pope and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are seen as forces impelling toward catholic unity. The hierarchy is thus a defining feature of the Catholic Church to Roman Catholics, but no, it is not all by itself the Church of Christ one holy catholic and apostolic.

Since I'm an Anglo-Catholic, I see it as subsisting in all the apostolic churches as governed by the historic episcopate, not just those in communion with Rome or Canterbury or any other particular see.

But these are theological definitions. They're not to deny that a political definition might be possible, just that it's not what a Roman Catholic or an Anglo-Catholic has in mind when she talks about "the Church."

~246

Well at least you contend that "The Church" is a definition rather than being a reality. As noted above "The People of the United States" and "The Republic" are also definitions (but not realities).

Well, obviously Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics believe the Church not only to be a reality, but a means of grace--just as we would assert, say, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be a reality.

The "church" in Christian theology is very much like—consciously like—Israel, the Jewish people, or at least how the early Jewish Christians understood it. That is, it's a theological reality, mostly but not definitionally the same as various demographic and political realities.

~249

Yes, I fully agree with the analogy.

The problem is, of course, that The Jewish People and Israel are also myths, in both the positive and negative sense - that is, they are concepts that binds together people who in fact have markedly different beliefs and who are otherwise separate groups. See, e.g., The Invention of the Jewish People The Myth of the Jewish Race

In one sense there is nothing wrong with such myths so long as we recognize that they are only myths and not reality. If I want to feel kinship with an African who claims to be the cultural heir of a prerabbinic Judaism dating back to Solomon that may be a good thing. In another sense, one can easily go over the line and start believing that these myths are reality. That causes irrational behavior, as, for instance, when some might try to embrace psychotic and dangerous people as "brothers and sisters (in Christ or in Israel)". It is sometimes not wise to ignore distinctions.

This thread is about the Clergy sexual abuse scandal. Yet we seem stuck on classifications and that is because it's a way to exonerate "the Church."

You are all very well versed with the subtleties of these classifications, but ordinary people look at it in a simpler way.
I myself see the main split or classification as that between ordinary Catholics on the one hand and those that lead and have positions of power and influence on the other.

It is the latter group that are responsible. In terms of numbers they are small, but as a reflection of the Church, huge. My main point is that these people involved in abuses and the cover-up should be held accountable as the law dictates, but they are not because the legal, police and political groups don't want to be held accountable either.

No, I think we're tangent-ing. It's different.

I don't think you'll find many of us disagree that the institutional church is guilty here.

~252

The question that is being posed, as I understand it, is "Is there anything in reality beyond the institutional Church." I understand your theological dogmas on this point. As you've pointed out most religions have such dogmas (Islam, for instance, has the Ummah). Ideologies also have such dogmas. But as I pointed out above, and I believe TheKeyAuthor has been pointing out for sometime, useful myths are no longer useful when they are confused with realities - or when they obscure realities.

The institutional Catholic Church, along with Haredim sects, the armed forces of the United States and various other institutions that operate around belief in an authority structure, has had some problems. The problems are real. The problems emanate from people in positions of authority abusing that authority for their own personal gratification. You may want to imagine "the Church" but The Church is what exists. You have to deal with what exists if you want to resolve the problems.

One of the issues in dealing with this distinction is, of course, that some of the posters to these forums - and I don't mean to attribute this view to you, because I don't know whether you endorse it or not - want to start talking about "the True Scotsman Fallacy" when mention is made of concepts like "the Church" or "The Jewish People" or the Ummah. As I've said many times before, I don't think that move is helpful. Every educated Jew has a conception of what it means to be a member of The Jewish People, and what it means to have left that People. Presumably every educated Catholic has a conception of what it means to be a member of "the Church" and when one is and is not a member of "the Church." I think that discussions that center around such concepts are helpful. I think that they are helpful because they cause us to think about and define boundaries and the reasons for constructing those boundaries one way versus another way. I don't think it is helpful to junk such discussions because of a True Scotsman Fallacy, nor do I think that it is helpful to imagine that the boundaries we are groping toward already exist and define the issues. They don't pre-exist. They aren't metaphysical realities or any sort of realities.

250: " If I want to feel kinship with an African who claims to be the cultural heir of a prerabbinic Judaism dating back to Solomon that may be a good thing. In another sense, one can easily go over the line and start believing that these myths are reality."

How does one go about evaluating whether such a myth is or is not reality? If "cultural heir-dom" represents a falsifiable claim then it's a very different type of claim then the claim that all Christians together make up the mystical Body of Christ. But it's not clear to me that "cultural heir-dom" actually does represent a falsifiable claim.

253: "Presumably every educated Catholic has a conception of what it means to be a member of 'the Church' and when one is and is not a member of "the Church."

Honestly? I doubt it. And I'm certain it's not true of every educated Anglican. Which only proves that being able to articulate a sophisticated ecclesiology can be potentially overrated.

~254

"How does one go about evaluating whether such a myth is or is not reality? If "cultural heir-dom" represents a falsifiable claim then it's a very different type of claim then the claim that all Christians together make up the mystical Body of Christ. But it's not clear to me that "cultural heir-dom" actually does represent a falsifiable claim."

Again, you're having trouble reading. My claim was that the acceptance of these people as Jews was NOT a falsifiable move - it was a part of the myth of Jewish Peoplehood. I drew a boundary, and noting their claims and customs, they were within that boundary. All Jews do this all the time. Just as, presumably, all Catholics draw such boundaries (or have them drawn for them) as to who is within and who is not within the Church.

As I said, that can sometimes be a productive and useful myth and move. It is not, however, a real distinction in the world. Where to draw the boundary is valuative, not descriptive.

The problem is that there are people who think it is descriptive and act upon that premise. We know, for instance, that "The Land was given to the Jewish People" (never mind that the gift was conditional and that The Land had been taken from another people who had presumably breached their covenant). So, if Arabs are "other" they should be evicted from The Land, which is not their's by the gift of G-d. These are the same people who will tell you with absolute conviction that there is no dispute at all regarding "who is a Jew," i.e., they are people who are skilled at ignoring facts that actually exist in the world.

US monsignor William Lynn sentenced for abuse cover-up (BBC)

Honestly? I doubt it.

Yeah, no way on the Catholic.

#256 About time. So why do they promote them to the top jobs in the British Isles? I've seen a documentary about the head of the Irish Church and read accounts on Wikipedia about the British head involved in this sort of thing before they were promoted.

Now, that doesn't mean they are guilty of anything, but the fact they were promoted is deeply worrying. Why can't British Catholics initiate "proper" police investigations into this sort of thing? It's a reflection of the corruption across the whole Establishment.

"Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer" is applicable to all. If it can't be done, then the system has to change. And ordinary people will have to do it.

Why can't British Catholics initiate "proper" police investigations into this sort of thing? It's a reflection of the corruption across the whole Establishment.

Setting aside the fact that the Establishment in Britain differs among the countries (Anglican Church in England, Presbyterian Church in Scotland, none in Wales or N Ireland)...

there is a thousand-year-old constitutional division between the church and the secular authorities, which the Roman Catholic Church still effectively seems to retain in its attitudes, thanks to its canon law tradition, even though it has not been the Established Church for 450 years.

there is a thousand-year-old constitutional division between the church and the secular authorities, which the Roman Catholic Church still effectively seems to retain in its attitudes, thanks to its canon law tradition, even though it has not been the Established Church for 450 years

That's a neat trick. Far from being established, the Catholic Church in Britain was actually illegal for the majority of those years. Do you really think that the Catholic Church in Britain's attitudes are conditioned by lingering establishment nostalgia, or three-hundred years of executions, imprisonment, disabilities and fines?

>258 TheKeyAuthor: Why don't the "proper" police initiate "proper" police investigations? I don't know; ask them. And I don't know the details of a handful of individuals within the global Church who have been "promoted". I do know of quite a few who have been forced to resign.

What I do know is that the Church as a whole (and that includes bishops, priests and laity) was appalled at what happened, accepted responsibility for the fact that something had gone dreadfully wrong with our Church, and has spent the last decade or so trying to minimise the opportunities for anyone in a position of authority in the Church to abuse children in the future and to make it even more difficult for anyone to cover it up if it does happen. Much of the change is taking place because "ordinary people" are demanding it. Most Church authorities have cooperated with the police and the courts in dealing with past crimes. In cases which I'm personally aware of this cooperation has been given willingly, not grudgingly, although I grant that this has not been the case everywhere. Criminals amongst the clergy are being charged, tried and imprisoned and civil courts are awarding damages against the Church for its role in covering up. Don't under-estimate the change in attitude, as well as praxis, within the Church, at almost every level.

>259 MyopicBookworm: And that British Catholics are actually two separate Churches (England and Wales being one, Scotland the other), and that the Irish Church, while part of the geographic entity known as the British Isles (a term which is disputed by many Irish nationalists), has nothing whatsoever to do with the English, Welsh and Scottish Church, although Northern Ireland (which is part of the United Kingdom but not part of Great Britain) is part of the Irish Church.

>260 timspalding: And a lot of anti-Catholic attitudes endured long after official emancipation (and right up to the beginning of the 21st century in Northern Ireland).

>262 John5918:

Anti-Catholic attitudes are still quite strong in Britain. And, indeed, it's still legally impossible for a Catholic to succeed to the throne.

#259 and related posts
there is a thousand-year-old constitutional division between the church and the secular authorities, which the Roman Catholic Church still effectively seems to retain in its attitudes, thanks to its canon law tradition

An interesting point. I recently watched an excellent documentary (The Strange Case of The Law) in Britain about the history of British law, which has influenced law in the English speaking world. It was presented by a criminal defence lawyer called Harry Potter (it's true). He touched on the clergy abuse scandal and mentioned he thought it had its roots in the canon law tradition.

The three-part series aimed to show how England’s legal system is its greatest gift to civilisation. Anyone reading my book would know what I think of that.

>260 timspalding: I think the British Catholic Church(es) can on occasion show the same attitude as many churches do: the Anglicans in England, the Catholics in Ireland, the Orthodox in Russia. The Church is Special, and the secular law should not be applied to the clergy because they are Holy Men.

>263 timspalding: The bar to succession is not an "anti-Catholic attitude": it's a recognition of the fact that a Roman Catholic cannot be Head of the Church of England. As far as I am aware, it is impossible for an American to succeed to the office of Prime Minister.

British Catholics, separate Churches and anti-Catholic attitudes...

That is for a different thread. All I'm saying is there is information in the public domain implying senior figures were promoted to become leaders of churches after they were involved in or linked to some sort of cover-up.

In Britain and Ireland, they received criticism from some quarters but no more than that. I feel that is more to do with the corrupt nature of the authorities in those countries than anything else.

I also feel ordinary people are powerless to do anything about it, which is more a criticism of the system. Child trade also goes on in Britain and you can't do anything about that either. I'm trying to do something about it, but as you can see, it's not really happening.

>266 TheKeyAuthor: If there are credible allegations and the police have not followed them up, you would need to ask the police why. There are many many cases of all sorts which are not followed through to the end by the Crown Prosecution Service because ultimately there is not enough evidence to make a conviction likely. What is "in the public domain" is often not the same as "evidence". Some of these cases happened 50, 60, 70 years ago; many of the victims, perpetrators and witnesses are dead; a lot of this was probably not well-documented at the time. I would imagine that it's not easy for a prosecutor to build a watertight case. A man is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies with the Crown. Lawyers can correct me if I am wrong, but also the burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than in a civil case, so even if someone is considered "guilty" enough for the Church to be ordered by a civil court to pay compensation, he may not necessarily be found guilty of the crime. When things don't go the way we think is fair, it's not always due to corruption and conspiracy. Often there is a simple answer.

#267: A man is innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies with the Crown.

I think especially in a democracy, that's putting too much weight on the government. The burden lies on all those who know about what happened to come forward.

~267

You are right. Those who think that the government shouldn't have to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt are......, well, I don't use that sort of language.

>268 prosfilaes: Fair comment, but what I meant was that the burden is on those who want to prove him guilty to do so, not on him to prove himself innocent.

#267, #270 Yes, that is called a fair trial or a proper legal process.

The problem in Britain is that a member of the public can't ask the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to investigate, the police have to do that.

There are many obstacles to justice:
1/. People won't come forward to report matters to the police
2/. The police can block it at source by not doing an investigation
3/.The CPS can review the case and decide there is not enough evidence
4/.The judge may give a lenient sentence
5/.The Lord Chancellor (justice secretary) can spring people from jail early

This happens in Britain when those accused are part of the system. It took over 800 years to successfully prosecute a barrister for a perverting the course of justice offence. He got a ridiculously small sentence before being released after a few months by the Lord Chancellor to spend the rest of his sentence at home. The Chancellor never gave a reason when asked, but then the Chancellor was also a barrister.

#268 The burden lies on all those who know about what happened to come forward.

In a religious and moral sense, yes. So why don't people come forward? The answer is because of the treatment they will receive at the hands of the authorities and perhaps even the media.

If an ordinary person makes a complaint against someone in public office or part of the system (Establishment, authorities etc.), then they will not be welcomed with open arms. All sorts of barriers exists at all levels. All sorts of practices exist that will make it an ordeal.

That is how it is in Britain. It seems a little better in America, but then again, how could it be any worse?

>271 TheKeyAuthor:, 272 those accused are part of the system

As Tim says, it is arguable whether the Catholic Church is considered "part of the system" in the UK.

Yes, some of the points you make are probably true, but I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. People don't report some crimes; sometimes there is not enough evidence to make it worthwhile pursuing a case in court; judges have discretion over sentencing (to be either lenient or severe); there is the possibility of parole; so what?

because of the treatment they will receive at the hands of the authorities and perhaps even the media

Whatever the situation may have been in the past, I think both authorities and media now encourage people to come forward to report child sexual abuse.

#273 Whatever the situation may have been in the past, I think both authorities and media now encourage people to come forward to report child sexual abuse.

Well, the media and the authorities treated me with utter contempt when I reported serial child abduction.

Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Telegraph, BBC's Panorama etc, judges, CPS, DPP, Attorney General, Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, MEPs, ambassadors (including US), US Secretary of State (in part), Metropolitan Police, North Wales Police, Liberty, European Court of Human Rights and so on and so on.

My reward for reporting this? Years of torture by injustice.

The real problem is that most people won't accept that the people (system) who run their country are dangerously corrupt. I suspect that is because you grow up "learning" that your police and judicial system etc. is the best in the world. When someone points out this is not so, they are treated as if they are barking mad. Why is it so hard to believe that human beings can be cruel to others?

We all know corruption exists in politics and the police, but do you really think the legal profession and judiciary are immune? Yet there are never any scandals about the legal profession. That is because they are immensely powerful and well organised. If there is any hint of a scandal breaking out they clamp down on it with ruthless efficiency. It's like living in a nightmare. That is the reality. Wake up!

>274 TheKeyAuthor: I don't think anybody believes there is no corruption anywhere, let alone in the organs of government. You have apparently had a bad experience, for which I am very sorry. But one case does not a conspiracy make.

Look, there are many instances where the police and judiciary have fallen short, whether through corruption or just bad practice. The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, Winston Silcott, Blair Peach, Stephen Lawrence, David Tomlinson, the whole Rupert Murdoch saga, the SPG, the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, institutional racism and much more. When I was growing up in East London the slogan "George Davis is innocent" appeared everywhere (he almost certainly wasn't, but he had probably been fitted up for the actual crime for which he was imprisoned). In almost all these cases there has eventually been a day of reckoning (in the case of the Birmingham Six it took seventeen years). Eventually there are enough professional coppers, honest judges, politicians who may or may not be honest but see where their interests lie, crusading lawyers, human rights activists, religious leaders, investigative journalists and the great British public who between them get the case raised again and again until there is a solution. In odd cases where it isn't (I'm thinking of the Saudi Arabian arms deal where Tony Blair stopped the investigation) at least it gets a lot of publicity and people can make their own judgement.

The bar to succession is not an "anti-Catholic attitude": it's a recognition of the fact that a Roman Catholic cannot be Head of the Church of England. As far as I am aware, it is impossible for an American to succeed to the office of Prime Minister.

Oh, come on. The whole thing is deeply rooted in Britain's long quarrel with Catholicism. Besides, forget succeeding to the throne. It wasn't until 2001 that a member of the royalty could marry a Catholic--irrespective of their religion or the religion of their children!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/catholics_still_barred_from_throne_despite_law_c...

#275 In odd cases where it isn't (I'm thinking of the Saudi Arabian arms deal where Tony Blair stopped the investigation) at least it gets a lot of publicity and people can make their own judgement.

A/. Tony Blair was/is heavily involved in my case
B/. Prime Ministers Brown and Cameron changed the law so stories like mine can't be publicised
C/. This is about serial child abduction (illegal removal of children out of UK), not arms deals, which makes it very sensitive because of the (potential) public backlash. Remember Soham, the McCanns and Milly Dowler.

I have clear evidence the authorities destroyed/damaged the audio recordings of a hearing presided over by a judge at the Royal Courts of Justice because the judge was under investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints and I threatened to go to the European Courts of Human Rights. That audio recording backed my claim my daughter was illegally removed because of a serious international law mistake by the British judiciary. The judge is a knight of the realm, head of a lawyers' religious group and one of the most respected and famous family law judges in Britain.

The lengths to which the authorities have gone to stop my story getting to the public are deeply worrying. I just think they went past the point of no return. A dodgy police department here and a corrupt politician there is one thing but corruption across the board is something else.

#275 crusading lawyers, human rights activists, religious leaders, investigative journalists and the great British public who between them get the case raised
Done that. I am still waiting on some and pushing others but in general, I still receive nothing but a wall of silence.

>277 TheKeyAuthor: Obviously you know much more about your case than we do. From what you've shared in your profile, it seems to be a complicated one, with three nationalities involved and the competing claims of two parents. I'm truly sorry that you haven't been able to get a satisfactory resolution, but I don't think it alters the fact that reports of sexual abuse of children, particularly by clergy, are generally now well-received and acted upon.

I don't remember the issues surrounding Soham; I thought that case was solved relatively quickly. I also thought the Dowler case had been solved, albeit far more slowly and with some criticism of the police. With the McCann case it appears to be the Portuguese police who mishandled it. And of course for every case that is mishandled, you can probably find others which are handled well; the police were generally praised for their successful resolution of that recent case where a little girl was kidnapped by her mother and uncle, weren't they?

#276 The abuse scandal has nothing to do with anti-Catholic tendencies. It occurred in countries staunchly Catholic.

Abuse of this nature can happen in many groups. The difference here is that far too many church leaders chose to cover it up. When they did that, they sold the church out. As far as I am concerned, they made a pact with the devil when they chose that path.

Why? Because the church has historically provided a buffer to curb the excesses of the State. Once the church joins in with corrupt actions of its own, it can't fulfil that primary function for ordinary people.

If a person reports some sort of abuse by the authorities to the church, then when it gets to the corrupt church leaders, what will they do? The answer is that they can't kick up a fuss about it because the authorities would know they were covering up their own abuses. So everyone keeps quiet, which only encourages more abuse of the public across the whole spectrum and at every level. And as my family have suffered because of that (and countless others), it makes me very angry indeed.

I feel deeply let down by all institutions that engage in abuse of power and cover-ups. But a church!

>279 TheKeyAuthor: I think you forget all the areas of the world where the Church stands up against the authorities over "abuse" (in the more general sense of human rights abuse, not only child abuse). Sudan is an example where the Church has stood up against a totalitarian government, South Africa another, and there are many others. There are also the cases throughout Latin America where parts of the Church supported the regimes whilst other parts stood up against them. It's not as simple as you suggest.

#278 The clergy scandal is now in the open and the authorities have to act. If it were not in the open, I doubt much would have changed.

#278 What I meant by the McCann cases etc. was that they commanded huge public interest and support. In the hacking scandal, the public weren't too bothered until the revelations about the Dowler hacking came to light. The public mood changed instantly to outright disgust and anger. Only then did the politicians do anything of note.

My point is that the stakes in my case are high because it involves children of innocent, ordinary parents.

#280 It's not as simple as you suggest.

"Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer"
That is as simple as it gets.

>282 TheKeyAuthor: The Churches in the countries I mention are defending the poor, including the children, against abuse by totalitarian regimes. Does that not matter? Even now you'll find the Church in the forefront of all sorts of initiatives to protect poor children, eg street children, refugees, anti-trafficking, etc.

And, as I frequently point out, in most countries the Church is now dealing correctly with clergy sex abuse (ie defending the children and punishing the wrongdoer) even if they didn't in the past.

The exhortation to defend the children may be simple, but you are failing to recognise how it is being done in complex ways across the world.

#283 you are failing to recognise how it is being done in complex ways across the world

True. I have concentrated on how it has not been done, in line with the topic. And I have touched on how it can have such a far wider impact than many may have considered.

Impunity is truly an evil not to be toyed with.

>284 TheKeyAuthor: Impunity is truly an evil not to be toyed with

Another slogan which few would disagree with.

>276 timspalding:

The former rule against marrying Roman Catholics is an artifact of anti-Catholicism in Britain dating from the historical conflict which arose in the wake of the establishment of the Church of England. I'd think that was undeniable. But the fact that rules about succession are so slow says more about that process than it does about mores in Britain. For one thing, all the countries where the British monarch is Sovereign must approve any changes. It's only recently been made the case that an older sister can inherit the throne prior to her younger brother. Yet we don't think of Britain as being particularly backwards in terms of gender equality, the CoE's dragging of its feet over women bishops notwithstanding.

>265 MyopicBookworm:, 276

The Bill of Rights (1689) requires a new monarch to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion and stipulates that:

"... it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Papist Prince".

#262: I can't say it's surprising that anti-Catholic attitudes would endure in a state like Northern Ireland where people were carrying out terrorist attacks in the name Catholicism.

>288 prosfilaes: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? While it certainly did degenerate into what one might objectively call "terrorism", much of the earlier armed resistance was a response to state terrorism. The repression of Catholics and/or nationalists in Northern Ireland did not begin as a response to "terrorism".

Edited to add: I think it demonstrates a complete disregard for history to suggest that anti-Catholic attitudes in Northern Ireland are connected with "terrorism". They far pre-date it and are one of the reasons that encouraged it.

That's exactly what adults worry about, who started it. In any case, in 1922, the Government of Northern Ireland was given the choice, and chose to be a part of the UK. Since that time, the majority of the populace of Northern Ireland has been for union with the UK. And unlike most communities, they had Irish citizenship and could have freely reestablished themselves 100 miles south. Given that their main demand seems to be that a free people get annexed to a nation that people had chosen not to get annexed to, it's hard to be terribly sympathetic.

>290 prosfilaes: Indeed the majority has been for union with UK, and the minority have been discriminated against. To quote BBC, "Unionists had ruled Northern Ireland for 50 years. During that time, the nationalist and Catholic minorities were subject to various kinds of discrimination...", which included the electoral system (there was no "one man, one vote" until the late 1960s), job opportunities, police brutality (eg the Black and Tans, the B Specials) and much more. The arrival of foreign (British) troops was actually welcomed by the Catholic community initially, as a reprieve from the brutality and oppression they were suffering. Unfortunately the squaddies soon blotted their copybook (in part through political manipulation from both sides) and became associated with the unionists in the minds of the nationalists. Irish "terrorism" as we know it grew up at around the same time and was a result of 50 years of "anti-Catholic attitudes" (aka discrimination), not the cause of them. The "main demand" of most ordinary Catholics in Northern Ireland was simply to be treated as equal citizens. Their initial response was a civil rights movement.

>290 prosfilaes: That's exactly what adults worry about, who started it.

I'm not sure what, if anything, you are implying by this. I'm responding to your apparent assertion in >288 prosfilaes: that anti-Catholic attitudes in Northern Ireland were caused by terrorism. I'm trying to provide some history to suggest that this was not the case and that they long predated terrorism.

>276 timspalding: forget succeeding to the throne. It wasn't until 2001 that a member of the royalty could marry a Catholic

That's simply false. Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic in 1978 (and forfeited his right of succession, though his chance of succeeding was remote anyway: he was about 16th in line at the time). The Earl of St Andrews married a Catholic in 1988.

It is not just a matter of anti-Catholic sentiment: it is an issue of constitutional sovereignty. The "whole thing is deeply rooted" in the history of tension between the authority of Rome and the authority of secular government. The British constitution does not allow for the Head of State to accede authority to any extra-national person or body unless by the will of the people. It has been constitutionally possible for sovereignty to be partially ceded to the European Union, but only through a full political process, and the British people retain democratic contribution to the European system. The British people collectively are not represented in the government of the Catholic Church. It was possible for a more absolute monarch to make obeisance to Rome in 1553; it would not be possible now; it might be possible in future if the Church of England were disestablished, though I'm not sure how well it would go down in Scotland (where the Presbyterian Church is established) or Wales or Northern Ireland.

#292: I didn't say that; I used the word "endure" in #288 intentionally. You keep referring to "nationalists" in #291; the fact that a minority group had the intent of separating a province from the country of the majority group and annexing it to the country of the minority group surely helped keep things hot.

I don't want to appear over critical as I entered this debate very late, but it seems there is an eagerness to discuss Catholic divisions in all forms instead of the main issue.

We should put aside divisions and allegiances and work together to stop such abuse, cover-ups and impunity at all times and wherever it strikes.

>295 TheKeyAuthor: No disagreement with that, but whenever we have tried to do that we're accused of trying to shift attention away from the Catholic Church's sins. Can't win!

#296 You reported (#256) "US monsignor William Lynn sentenced for abuse cover-up" and I responded with (#258) "About time. So why do they promote them to the top jobs in the British Isles? I've seen a documentary about the head of the Irish Church and read accounts on Wikipedia about the British head involved in this sort of thing before they were promoted.

Assuming there is some truth in it, why the discrepancy? Pursuing this would not "shift attention away from the Catholic Church's sins." Quite the opposite.

So why are these men not under investigation? It's because of the vice grip impunity has over here. Today's article exposes the culture, albeit in the financial sector. Here are a few relevant quotes:

The regulators and other enforcement agencies, for example the Serious Fraud Office (answerable to the Attorney General), have totally failed us in holding people who have committed wrongdoing to account."
"Regulators and enforcement agencies are too cosy with the firms they supervise," he says. "There are loads of revolving doors between the regulators and the regulated." Plus, he says, there have been no personal consequences for wrong doing - no jail, fines, public censure or banning - so, therefore no deterrents.

Archbishop of Canterbury condemns child abuse failings (BBC)

Child sex abuse inquiry damns Chichester church's local safeguarding (Guardian)

I posted the BBC link on my facebook page and wrote: "It was only the actions of the victims that brought about prosecutions and the church taking these unprecedented steps. It would have gone on for decades otherwise because the British authorities all stick together, block justice, and torture and kill their victims as they have done for centuries..."

A victim (now an adult) gave an interview on TV stating it was only his actions and those of other victims that forced the British authorities to finally act. Some "Priests" have been prosecuted for child abuse, but I doubt anyone will be for covering it up (unlike in the USA).

Bye the way, my own story is free to download (e-Reader, Kindle versions).

European Warrant issued over Ealing 'sex abuse' priest (BBC)

301# If they are going to those lengths, then why not go after those that helped let the abusers go unpunished?

Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini has described the Roman Catholic Church as being "200 years behind" the times.

I think most established churches can be added to that.

>303 TheKeyAuthor: See the thread on the topic of Cardinal Martini at http://www.librarything.com/topic/141654

"The U.S. Catholic bishops' point man on sexual abuse (Bishop R. Daniel Conlon) has said that the hierarchy's credibility on fixing the problem is "shredded" and that the situation is comparable to the Reformation, when "the episcopacy, the regular clergy, even the papacy were discredited.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/r-daniel-conlon-catholic-sex-abuse_n_18...

#305 I think that guy is getting to the real truth here

Conlon said that the conviction of a high-ranking church official in Philadelphia for covering up clergy abuse and the upcoming trial of a bishop in Missouri on charges of failing to report a priest on suspicions of child abuse have contributed to a widespread impression that the bishops "have failed to keep their commitments.

I know I keep going on about it, but why don't they prosecute the cover-up side of things in the UK and Ireland? I take it no one in the Church presses for this if they reside outside of the countries where it takes place? Why doesn't the Pope ask the British government to initiate a police investigation?

>305 margd: From the linked article: he had always assumed that consistently implementing the bishops' policies on child protection, "coupled with some decent publicity, would turn public opinion around."

I think this would have been the feeling of many within the Church. In most national bishops' conferences measures have been put in place to minimise the risk of child abuse, and to make it extremely difficult to cover up any new cases of abuse. The culture has changed within the hierarchy. I think they assumed that because they are now doing the right thing, people would notice it and give credit for it. That hasn't proved to be the case, and I suppose anyone with any media savvy would have predicted it, but unfortunately the Church has always been rather poor at PR.

>306 TheKeyAuthor: Why should the pope interfere in the British criminal justice system? If the British police think a crime has been committed, and the Crown Prosecution Service think they have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction, they are quite capable of investigating.

A Kansas City bishop was just convicted of not immediately reporting suspected child abuse (pornography, in this case). The incident happened in 2010, eight years after US bishops adopted tough new measures to minimize the risk of child abuse. His defense cost his diocese $1.5 million. He did not immediately resign, and only the Pope can force him, which may be in the works but has not yet happened. This is no way to rebuild the hierarchy's credibility...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/whats-next-for-robert-finn-the-f...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/bishop-finn-guilty-child-abuse-reportin...

~307

"I think this would have been the feeling of many within the Church. In most national bishops' conferences measures have been put in place to minimise the risk of child abuse, and to make it extremely difficult to cover up any new cases of abuse. The culture has changed within the hierarchy. I think they assumed that because they are now doing the right thing, people would notice it and give credit for it. That hasn't proved to be the case, and I suppose anyone with any media savvy would have predicted it, but unfortunately the Church has always been rather poor at PR."

I am afraid that "the problem" runs much deeper than that. You see, for some of us at least, what human beings TYPICALLY do is largely a function of the incentives facing them. You face them with incentives to "do good," they "do good." You face them with incentives to "do evil," they do evil. This is, of course, not true for every human being all the time, but it is generally true for most of us most of the time. That isn't determinism, but it is, again, a form of morality and expectation about human beings that is less and more practical, than the Sermon On The Mount (which is, frankly, unrealistic and probably has done much more harm than it has done good).

Now the Church may have taken official notice of "a problem" it faces. It may have made many high pronouncements about that problem. Bishops may have extensively wagged their fingers at Priests, and, when unavoidable, had a few of them publically disgraced or put in jail. But what has REALLY changed? Aren't devout and devoted Catholic families and children taught to look upon a Priest as the presence of G_d embodied? To obey, because it is good for them to obey? Aren't Priests still taught that they are the shepherd of their flock? Aren't Priests still human beings, some of whom have impulses that our society condemns as perverse. Haven't they given up much, and, hence, should be entitled to some benefits? (At least in their own minds?)

I am not within the Church, and perhaps I am wrong about the above, but if I am not wrong, nothing has changed and results will not be different. We Jews have a similar institutional set up in our Haredi sects. There is a Rebbe or Rosh Yeshiva who are regarded in the same way that the Priesthood is in Catholicism. These communities have also had pervasive scandals of the same sort and have reacted in the same way. (The only difference being that the press has not picked up extensively on the scandals in Haredi communities, because of repercussions if they do so.)

>308 margd: Yes, but this is now a very isolated incident in terms of covering up a case of abuse, rather than the norm as in the past. Note also that he didn't get away with it; he was found out very quickly, unlike in the past, and was found guilty by the criminal justice system. In other words, the new systems worked. I would still maintain that the culture has changed overall.

For a slightly different angle on this particular case, see Kansas City diocese's ombudsman talks sex abuse prevention (NCR).

>309 lawecon: Aren't devout and devoted Catholic families and children taught to look upon a Priest as the presence of G_d embodied? To obey, because it is good for them to obey?

No, they're not.

Aren't Priests still taught that they are the shepherd of their flock?

Shepherds, not predators.

Aren't Priests still human beings, some of whom have impulses that our society condemns as perverse

Of course they are, which is why I said "minimise" instead of "eradicate" the risk of child abuse. Crime exists, and I doubt whether there will ever be a class of human beings in which crime is completely eradicated. That's why the Church has introduced, belatedly, a lot of the normal procedures which one finds amongst other professionals who deal with children to try to minimise the risk. And, if an individual does commit a crime, it is now unlikely to be covered up and, if it is, that new crime of covering up is likely to be prosecuted (as per the case in >308 margd:).

Haven't they given up much, and, hence, should be entitled to some benefits? (At least in their own minds?)

Maybe they have "given up much", but no, they are not entitled to special benefits, and no, I would say that is not what is "in their own minds". Do you know any priests?

~310

"Do you know any priests?"

As I've mentioned several times in the past, 30 years ago I taught for several years at a small Catholic University. One of the "city name" universities of which there are a number in the United States. Generally smaller schools with high entrance exam averages, rigorous standards, and very few students from wealthy families who think that the world owes them a living.

In that academic context I use to know a fair number of Priests. I generally liked them better than the run of the mill nonPriest. Some of them I thought were excellent scholars with elevated moral standards and consciences. Admirable people in every way.

However, I also, in the academic context, but not in the pastoral context, noted how the students "related" to these Priests. It wasn't far different from how a junior cadet at a military academy related to a senior officer on the faculty of the military academy. Indeed, the nonclerical Catholic faculty were unusually reserved and "docile" when a Priest was present. That I wasn't was, I think, one of the reasons that most of the Priests liked me and I liked them. They may not have wanted to "be different," but they clearly were "different" and the culture seemed to be that anyone who was "respectable" would acknowledge and act upon that difference.

That is the what I'm talking about. If there is that sort of culture the type of problem we are discussing isn't going to go away. There may be an "elevated consciousness" about it for a while, people in positions of power may wring their hands and proclaim their good intentions, but when you have an institution where one class is the repository of virtue and wisdom and most other people are well advised to shut up and listen, then human beings will abuse that institution.

Now, unlike most of the posters to this thread I do not necessarily think that such is a definitive case against such an institution and its structure. Many people (most people?) throughout history have preferred not to rise to the level of the Catholic Clergy as a whole, or the rabbinate as a whole or a number of other similar groups. It is simply too much trouble for them. They'd prefer to listen to TV, watch sporting events, go through the motions at work, chatter in "chat rooms," have a 6 pack, and otherwise "be ordinary." I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing either, but it is a pattern of behavior that requires an extension of a parent/child relationship into the adulthood of both groups.

>311 lawecon: Fair comment, but I think my point is that the culture has changed from 30 years ago.

#307 306 Why should the pope interfere in the British criminal justice system? If the British police think a crime has been committed, and the Crown Prosecution Service think they have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction, they are quite capable of investigating.
But they don't. You know my angle (state impunity is rife in the UK). I believe lawecon has touched on the same underlying cause in #309 and #311:

I am afraid that "the problem" runs much deeper than that. You see, for some of us at least, what human beings TYPICALLY do is largely a function of the incentives facing them. You face them with incentives to "do good," they "do good." You face them with incentives to "do evil," they do evil. This is, of course, not true for every human being all the time, but it is generally true for most of us most of the time.
When this pervades all levels of authority, impunity reigns supreme.

That is the what I'm talking about. If there is that sort of culture the type of problem we are discussing isn't going to go away. There may be an "elevated consciousness" about it for a while, people in positions of power may wring their hands and proclaim their good intentions, but when you have an institution where one class is the repository of virtue and wisdom and most other people are well advised to shut up and listen, then human beings will abuse that institution.
That is exactly what goes on in the institutions that rule and control us: government, judiciary, armed forces, police, regulators and media etc. Human beings need social order and a feeling of trust and security in the institutions that control them. Studies show that humans live their lives through rose-tinted glasses. They do that to shield themselves from the truth. The truth being that the institutions that control them don't give a damn about anybody except themselves. If the controlled kick-up a fuss over something (child abuse, trading in children etc.), the institutions will intuitively stick together and block justice unless there is too much public pressure. But in the long term, they will go back to their old corrupt ways because it is just so easy to do so. That is also because the majority "prefer to listen to TV, watch sporting events, go through the motions at work, chatter in "chat rooms," have a 6 pack, and otherwise "be ordinary." In other words, we are not blameless, but try getting "ordinary" members of the public to admit to that. They won't because life without such glasses is too painful after prolonged exposure.

~312

I am sure that is true. In the respects I'm talking about?

>313 TheKeyAuthor: state impunity is rife in the UK

Well, I don't know whether that is true or not, but what on earth has it got to do with the Roman Catholic Church which, in the UK (as Tim has pointed out somewhere, I believe), has nothing to do with the state; quite the opposite, in fact?

>314 lawecon:

I suspect it depends on the parish, and in particular the age of the priest and/or the age of the parishioners.

>314 lawecon: Yes, in the respects you're talking about.

>316 cjbanning: Yes, to some extent it does, I suppose, but I would still maintain that the overall culture has changed radically, particularly with respect to child sexual abuse. Priests in Ireland, for example, tell me that the default position of their parishioners now is often suspicion rather than respect. In many national bishops' conferences the default position for the last decade is to report child abuse. Priests are now suspended on the slightest hint of an accusation, which in many cases are proven to be mistaken, but better to err on the side of caution. Of course crime still occurs, but as the case referred to in >308 margd: demonstrates, the crimes are no longer covered up for decades, and the perpetrators face the criminal justice system.

Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini has described the Roman Catholic Church as being "200 years behind" the times.

I think the Cardinal left off a zero.

~317

Let me try it again, John. I am in no way contending that child sexual abuse is a permitted or encouraged practice in The Church. I am in no way contending that it ever has been.

What I AM contending is that when you have an organizational structure where certain people have such elevated status above the norm that they are viewed as somehow not quite human that some of them will abuse this attitude and status. They will often do so having justified to themselves that they are not really doing anything wrong or abnormal but are simply exercising their superior traits. There doesn't have to be a policy or a conspiracy or any other similar thing, it is just a natural outcome of such an organizational structure.

>319 lawecon: No disagreement there, and I think that was a significant contributory factor to both the abuse and the covering up in the past. But I would still maintain that the culture of the "organisational structure" has changed and priests are no longer viewed in that way; indeed, as the Irish example suggests, quite the opposite in many places. Nor, generally, do priests view themselves in that way any more, I would suggest.

Kansas City's Bishop Finn must resign or be removed (NCR)

Australian Roman Catholic Church admits child sex abuse (BBC)

Boy Scouts to report pedophiles missed previously

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Boy Scouts of America plan to begin doing what critics argue they should have done decades ago — bring suspected abusers named in the organization’s so-called perversion files to the attention of police departments and sheriff’s offices across the country.

The Scouts have, until now, argued they did all they could to prevent sex abuse within their ranks by spending a century tracking pedophiles and using those records to keep known sex offenders out of their organization. But a court-ordered release of the perversion files from 1965 to 1985, expected sometime in October, has prompted Scouts spokesman Deron Smith to say the organization will go back into the files and report any offenders who may have fallen through the cracks...

...some of the files released in 1991, detailing cases from 1971 to 1991, showed repeated instances of Scouts leaders failing to disclose sex abuse to authorities, even when they had a confession...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/20121001boy_scouts_to_rep...

What I AM contending is that when you have an organizational structure where certain people have such elevated status above the norm that they are viewed as somehow not quite human that some of them will abuse this attitude and status. They will often do so having justified to themselves that they are not really doing anything wrong or abnormal but are simply exercising their superior traits. There doesn't have to be a policy or a conspiracy or any other similar thing, it is just a natural outcome of such an organizational structure.

I don't entirely disagree with this, although I might not put it as strongly as you did. But it's a weird fact of the abuse that it happened largely after Vatican II—a period when the status of the priesthood was eroding fast. This may just be an effect of our knowledge—maybe Catholic priests were sexually abusing boys at greater rates in the past; we just didn't find out. And I certainly don't hold to the notion that widespread sexual abuse and cover-up was some sort of logical consequence of Vatican II. But it injects a discordant note in your explanation.

~323

Curious, isn't it, how the Boy Scouts of America doesn't want those "perverted" homosexuals in their ranks, but apparently isn't that concerned about the child molesters. Ah, well, each to his own preferred perversion.

Now it's the BBC that is being accused of covering up sexual abuse.

Former BBC Radio 1 boss 'aware of Jimmy Savile allegations in 1970s' (Guardian)

Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile – review (Guardian)

Liking young girls is not a preference, it's a perversion (Guardian)

Jimmy Savile: no evidence to suggest wrongdoing ignored, says BBC chief (Guardian)

everybody is more accountable now than they were then

Ex-Radio 1 DJ Liz Kershaw claims she was groped on air (BBC)

Older men, young girls: a common theme of 70s pop – but still wrong (Guardian)

So: are we projecting modern attitudes back into a very different time? Yes, we are. Are we right to do so? Yes, we are. Many things once considered "normal" – ranging from institutional racism and legal suppression of homosexuality to drinking and driving or smoking in public places – are now proscribed, and we are, both as a culture and as individuals, better for it. Quite simply, we know better now

Savile colleagues should talk to police (Guardian)

"Savile told me once that he was too invaluable for them to dismiss for his sexual peccadilloes which, to be fair to him, he never attempted to disguise."

Savile abuse claims: Police pursue 120 lines of inquiry (BBC)

Sir Jimmy's pattern of offending behaviour appeared to be on "a national scale" and he had a "predilection for teenage girls".

Chilean Catholic bishop resigns over paedophilia accusation (BBC)

Yes, isn't it horrible that people aren't more forgiving and Christ-like in dealing with these flawed human beings, just because they are paedophiles or because they tried to protect the Church? Is there no love among Christians? Can't we forgive and forget.

I think it is a horrible thing that there are those, particularly those 20 years later, who still carry revenge in their hearts and disrupt good works for what they call "justice." And who, after all. among we vile sinners, is entitled to this "justice"? All we are entitled to is unconditional love, and the accusers refuse to give the accused their due.

(Something I learned recently in another thread.)

Love and justice are not incompatible. Sarcasm rarely contributes to the promotion of either.

I think that "unconditional love and forgiveness" and justice are completely incompatible. Sorry that you think that pointing that out is only sarcasm.

Now you have pointed it out without using sarcasm.

Well, I'm glad that you now approve of the tone. (Since apparently the substance has no relevance to you.)

>333 lawecon: I believe the substance can be better communicated and understood if the tone is right.

Yes, John, you've made it quite clear in that "other thread" that you think that words have only emotional implications, not substantive content. Some disagree, but I'm sure that you're in the majority.

If I'm wrong, and you want to talk about substantive content, perhaps you could explain what is amiss in my presentation of a "real Christian" view in post #329. Or is it that your Church now has a new tradition of exempting child molesters from "unconditional love and forgiveness?"

>335 lawecon: you think that words have only emotional implications, not substantive content

No. What I said in >334 John5918: was that the tone (emotional implications, I suppose) cam affect whether the substantive content is communicated and understood. If one thinks that one's substantive content is important enough to merit being communicated and understood, then one might want to communicate it in such a way that there is the most likelihood of it being understood.

What is wrong with your post >329 lawecon: is that you present a sarcastic caricature. I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say there.

Well, John, I don't think it is a caricature, and I really can't imagine that you are confused over what I'm saying. Anyone else who is confused might want to read the last 50 or so posts in this thread http://www.librarything.com/topic/131380 but you surely aren't confused. Are you really?

>337 lawecon: Well, looking at it again, I don't see any question there, just a sarcastic caricature. I think MyopicBookworm has summed up in >330 MyopicBookworm: what has been said often elsewhere, "Love and justice are not incompatible", if the point of your >329 lawecon: was once again to suggest that they are incompatible.

That is right, John. UNCONDITIONAL love and forgiveness are incompatible with justice. The whole point of UNCONDITIONAL love and UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness is that there are no conditions for their application. That is what you and the other "real Christians" were telling me was the core of Christianity. If it is the core of Christianity then Christians can't be in favor of any penalty for crimes. They must love and forgive the criminal, not punish him. Anything less would not be UNCONDITIONAL love of your fellow men. Anything less would not be UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness. So pedophiles shouldn't be removed from their positions or otherwise punished. They should just be loved and forgiven (with our fingers crossed that they won't do it again).

I don't see what that isn't crystal clear, other than your tradition tells you that you should practice willful blindness and consider punishment and unconditional love and forgiveness as compatible. They sure aren't compatible in English or logic.

Caricatures, John, are descriptions that are in some sense not true. What I'm saying is true, so it can't be a caricature. What I have described is how a Christian should react to this scandal if he is, in your definition, a true Christian.

I can see that "unconditional forgiveness" would be compromised by retributive punishment if the forgiveness is not only offered but also genuinely understood and accepted. It would not be compromised by the belief that restitution should be made. Not that the forgiveness is conditional on the restitution, but that even after forgiveness, some restitution should be made.

Removing pedophiles from their position is not punishment: it is the operation of love towards possible future victims, and the operation of love toward the offender in offering removal from temptation and "time for amendment of life".

" It would not be compromised by the belief that restitution should be made. Not that the forgiveness is conditional on the restitution, but that even after forgiveness, some restitution should be made."

What do you not understand about the term UNCONDITIONAL? I think it is rather clear.

It is very very clear when true Christians (which apparently now doesn't really include fundamentalists) talk about unconditional love and forgiveness in the abstract or in contrast to the morally inferior views of other religions or nonrelgiions.

It only becomes murky once one gets to the application to the world around us. Then we can forgive, but only on certain conditions. (As you just said.)

"Removing pedophiles from their position is not punishment: it is the operation of love towards possible future victims, and the operation of love toward the offender in offering removal from temptation and "time for amendment of life"."

Yes, I'm sure Torquemada said just about the same thing: "But it is for your own good! We don't want to see you burn forever in Hell Fire, and if we leave you alone you'll just infect others with your heresy. So, see, I'm doing you a favor. Now be a good vile heretic, and lay down on the rack. so we can get your authentic confession before we burn you."

I can assure you that most of the people who you are being so kind toward by removing them from the positions that they have worked a life time to establish don't agree that it is for their own good.

But what brings this up is all the hand wringing by true Christians over pedophila in their Church, when I was just being told repeatedly by these same true Christians in the thread I referenced (and not for the first time) that we're all gross sinners and the perspective of each of us should be UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness of our brother's sins. We can then become TRULY G-dlike.

As I said, what do you not understand about UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness and love toward your brother?

As I said, what do you not understand about UNCONDITIONAL forgiveness and love toward your brother?

What you don't seem to understand is that love and forgiveness operate on a different plane from justice. When my son crashes the car, I still love him just as much but I punish him. I may forgive him too, but I still don't give him the keys for a long while. Similarly, when a man kills his family, love impels us to pray for him, to hope that he comes to understand his crime, and, perhaps, visit him and continue to respect his basic human dignity. It does not mean we let him out of jail.

It's clear you don't agree with this concept of love and justice. But it's unclear to me why you can't understand. it.

You're right, I don't understand that, unless we are using the terms "love" and "forgiveness" as something wholly detached from the world of human interaction.

You don't UNCONDITIONALLY "love" or "forgive" the guy who you throw in jail or who you hang or who you otherwise punish. You may love or forgive him in that you won't punish him forever (a very odd use of the terms "love" and "forgiveness"). but you have decided that he pay a particular price for his acts. That is tailored justice, not UNCONDITIONAL love or forgiveness.

And I can't understand why you are having such problems with this. For most normal people, when you love something you don't simultaneously punish the object of your love. When you forgive, you don't then require punishment as you forgive. It is very straightforward, and any ambiguity is completely removed when you attach the term "unconditional" to those concepts. "Unconditional" means "without conditions," your love and forgiveness is not conditioned on the object of your love and forgiveness paying a price for his wrongs. There is no price - love and forgiveness are "freely given."

I can only presume that you have so long chanted that you unconditionally love and forgive your brothers, while also chanting that the sinner deserves his punishment that the terms no longer have any meaning for you. But, I assure you, they do have a meaning for others who have not had such long conditioning, and the meaning they have is that the speaker is either a hypocrite or has a psychological quirk that causes him to blank out the clear implications of what he fervently maintains.

And, once again Tim, we are not talking about a parent and a child. A child is an unfinished being. A parent's job is to teach and form the child. You are not G-d (who may or may not unconditionally love and forgive), you are one adult person among other adult persons. You don't love or forgive those other persons their acts because you might do so for your child. It is, as John might say, not the same context.

And I can't understand why you are having such problems with this. For most normal people, when you love something you don't simultaneously punish the object of your love. When you forgive, you don't then require punishment as you forgive. It is very straightforward, and any ambiguity is completely removed when you attach the term "unconditional" to those concepts.

Again, I disagree. You seem to think that love is at one end of a continuum, and punishment at the other. There can be no "loving punishment." If you love someone enough you don't punish them. Would that be a fair characterization?

You seem to create a hole—that children, as "unfinished beings," can be punished lovingly. So, when we punish our children—usually by simply letting them experience the consequences of their acts—our love remains constant. We're teaching unfinished beings, so punishment is teaching. So we can reformulate: "There can be no loving punishment, except children." Right?

My objection is two-fold:

1. I deny that we are "fully formed," and therefore, apparently, past the point where punishment is educative. I think we continue to grow as adults, and continue to learn. So, whether the consequences are human or divine, punishment is best when it teaches us. At a minimum, it teaches us the consequences of our actions. With luck, we realize that our suffering is a mirror of the suffering we caused, and we grow in empathy and resolve not to do it again. Sometimes this teaching is more explicit—good prisons help you to become a better person.

2. I deny that love and punishment are on the same continuum at all. The root of punishment is justice, not hatred. We return a book we've borrowed not because we love the library, but because justice requires it. If, after losing many books, the library cuts off our borrowing privileges, they do so because justice—fairness to other borrowers—demands it, not because they hate us. If they are on the same continuum, it is a continuum of love, for, when the educative effects are understood, just punishment is a loving act.

You are, perhaps bristling at this. Punishment isn't a loving act! I can only quote scripture:

"My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." (Proverbs 3:11-12)

"Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you." (Deuteronomy 8:5)

It would seem the authors of Proverbs and Deuteronomy thought adults were not "finished," but capable of correction through punishment. And they believed in "loving punishment." I think they were onto something.

"Again, I disagree. You seem to think that love is at one end of a continuum, and punishment at the other. There can be no "loving punishment." If you love someone enough you don't punish them. Would that be a fair characterization?"

Yes, I think that their compatibility was Torquemada's theory.

" You seem to create a hole—that children, as "unfinished beings," can be punished lovingly. So, when we punish our children—usually by simply letting them experience the consequences of their acts—our love remains constant. We're teaching unfinished beings, so punishment is teaching. So we can reformulate: "There can be no loving punishment, except children." Right?"

I think that the relationship between parent and child is nothing like the relationship between adult human beings. You obviously disagree and think of yourself, and those who you agree with, as the parent. I am not surprised at that attitude, but I find it to be both unrealistic and slightly nauseating.

"I deny that we are "fully formed," and therefore, apparently, past the point where punishment is educative. I think we continue to grow as adults, and continue to learn. So, whether the consequences are human or divine, punishment is best when it teaches us. At a minimum, it teaches us the consequences of our actions. With luck, we realize that our suffering is a mirror of the suffering we caused, and we grow in empathy and resolve not to do it again. Sometimes this teaching is more explicit—good prisons help you to become a better person."

Nice sounding, but no relationship to the world, as you know. Prisons are not places of moral growth, they are places where your freedoms are restricted and you are thrown into intimate and daily contact with those who, in many instances, are much more evil than you were when you were sentenced to the prison. It is punishment, pure punishment, don't try to pretty it up with myths.

"I deny that love and punishment are on the same continuum at all. The root of punishment is justice, not hatred. We return a book we've borrowed not because we love the library, but because justice requires it. If, after losing many books, the library cuts off our borrowing privileges, they do so because justice—fairness to other borrowers—demands it, not because they hate us. If they are on the same continuum, it is a continuum of love, for, when the educative effects are understood, just punishment is a loving act."

That is right. Just punishment is compatible with justice. Albeit repentance and recompense are even more compatible with justice. Justice has to do with the offender. The offender may mend his ways and make recompense. That is just. Or he, if necessary to save society (or a library) may be cut off from liberties that others have. That is just. But he is not, therefore, being subjected to Love and Forgiveness. He is either reforming himself or those around him are acting prudently toward someone that they have found to be unreliable as a full fellow citizen. What is so difficult to understand here?

Love and forgiveness have to do with what others do to the offender - they either protect themselves and take prudent steps to make sure that he does not offend again or they love and forgive. It is either/or, not both. You don't "love" someone when you incarcerate them or exile them or hang them, nor are you forgiving them. You are just acting justly (or not) and prudently (or not), but to call such acts "love" is to love like Torquemada loved.

As for your Jewish Scripture verses - how many times do I have to remind you, Tim. You are not G_d. Nor are you a parent disciplining a child. You are an adult human being advocating the punishment of another adult human being (or not). Adult human beings are children to G_d. That doesn't make them children to you. You are not G_d. So I don't think that these verses have any relevance to this discussion, unless there is something about your nature that you haven't disclosed to us.

>345 lawecon: Justice has to do with the offender

I would qualify that. Retributive justice has to do with the offender (and the state). Restorative justice has to do with the community, including both the offender and the victim.

Love and forgiveness have to do with what others do to the offender - they either protect themselves and take prudent steps to make sure that he does not offend again or they love and forgive. It is either/or, not both

Well, that appears to be where many of us disagree with you. It is rarely either/or for anything in the real world, it is usually a bit of both/and. As I have said before, you appear to prefer a clear cut black and white either/or view.

And as I've said before, you appear to prefer the emotive association of words to their ordinary substantial meaning. But as long as these exchanges continue in existence we will all know that by unconditional love and forgiveness you mean punishment administered by a state.

It is an odd definition, but just so long as no one confuses what you are saying with ordinary English, I guess there is no harm. There are, after all, a number of people in this world who say "enlightenment" and mean "sitting around and having a hallucination."

>347 lawecon: Can you indicate to which post you are referring? It seems to have no obvious bearing on my post >346 John5918:.

Jimmy Savile scandal prompts flood of calls to abuse victims' groups (Guardian)

the Metropolitan police... confirmed it was investigating allegations from 1959 to 2006...

"We are beginning to see a change in the consciousness of the country. People are starting to realise how damaging child abuse is"...

"Multiple people seem to have known what was going on"

Jimmy Savile 'asked about rumours' by BBC boss (BBC)

One of Jimmy Savile's former bosses at Radio 1 has said he questioned the DJ about rumours over his private life more than 20 years ago.

Derek Chinnery, Radio 1 controller from 1978-85, said he asked Savile about "these rumours we hear".

"And he said that's all nonsense"

you appear to prefer the emotive association of words to their ordinary substantial meaning

It is not at all clear to me what you understand by the word "forgiveness". It can be used to refer to an emotional/psychological attitude of the victim towards the offender, or it can be used to refer to the action of an authority in remitting a punishment. In either case, acting in such a way as to minimize the chance of re-offence, with the motive of protecting potential victims, does not, as far as I can see, interfere with the action of forgiveness. Removing a pedophile from a position of responsibility may be a negative act, but if it is explicitly and implicitly intended to prevent harm rather than to impose punishment, then it does not compromise the notion of forgiveness. (To forgive pedophiles without taking steps to prevent future harm is the mistake the the Catholic Church frequently made, to its eventual cost.)

As for "unconditional", it seems to me to me "without preconditions": the offender does not have to do anything to be forgiven, whether in the form of remorse or recompense.
Careless evangelical Christians often express the notion that divine forgiveness is conditional upon repentance, but this is not, I think, orthodox: divine forgiveness is offered unconditionally. But for it to take effect, you have to accept it; and such acceptance may not be without side-effects.

"It is not at all clear to me what you understand by the word "forgiveness". It can be used to refer to an emotional/psychological attitude of the victim towards the offender, or it can be used to refer to the action of an authority in remitting a punishment."

I am using the term in the way I use all terms having to do with ACTIONS of human beings. You forgive, you do not simultaneously punish. Now, of course, any such term could be used to refer to a mental state solely. But that is a pretty barren usage, and, arguably is meaningless. A mass murderer can SAY to his victims "I love you, love you, love you...." as he is dismembering them. We tend to think that he is not using the term "love" properly. Albeit, if the term means what you apparently mean by "forgiveness" he may be using it with total precision. If actions need not accord with terms concerning human motives, then maybe he really does love his victims as he dismembers them.

And please, as I said to Tim above several times, let's not attempt to evade this issue by talking about "authorities," as if you have no control or input into the situation.

Your shift of focus from the person being forgiven (or not) and/or punished (or not) to that person's victims is just another evasion. In the matter of forgiveness we are talking about two people - the forgiver and the forgiven. To introduce other persons is just to point out that there are many other considerations that can swamp forgiveness - at least for someone in their right mind.

But as you point out, such a weighing of considerations is not appropriate: "Careless evangelical Christians often express the notion that divine forgiveness is conditional upon repentance, but this is not, I think, orthodox: divine forgiveness is offered unconditionally. But for it to take effect, you have to accept it; and such acceptance may not be without side-effects."

And, I'm sorry, but I don't see any side effect of accepting forgiveness. It is just accepted and then the forgiven goes on. In fact, that is just what you're obviously afraid of - that the forgiven goes on exactly as he had before - in your attempt to switch attention to victims and what should be done to protect them.

I think we've reached a point of disagreement on essentials, such as:

1. whether love is the opposite of punishment, and therefore precludes it,
2. whether just punishment ought to be educative for adults as well as children, and
3. whether morality and law are same thing or not, or at least whether their principles are identical.

I suggest that, once we've found the roots of the disagreement, and found no movement is possible, it's time to stop arguing.

One retort only, then.

In the matter of forgiveness we are talking about two people - the forgiver and the forgiven.

Strictly, only the victim can forgive; but it is not usually the role of the victim to punish. A third party must therefore be relevant to the discussion (except in the special case of divine forgiveness and punishment, if you consider such things at all).

~352

I am perfectly happy to stop arguing once you and Arctic and John cease making false claims and comparisons between your truly Christian views and the views of most of the rest of humanity. Ready to stop? I doubt it.

~353

Yes, I agree, which is why I was somewhat skeptical about your introduction of "the authorities".

Only the victim can truly forgive. And your advice is, apparently, that the victim should always completely and unconditionally forgive and forget. But if that is your advice, then why would anyone else really care?

Indeed, wouldn't you say that paradise would be exactly that situation where we all unconditionally forgive and forget, regardless of the transgression against us and G-d?

wouldn't you say that paradise would be exactly that situation where we all unconditionally forgive and forget, regardless of the transgression against us and G-d?

Yes, probably: but we live in human societies.

You seem hung up on countering Christianity: forgiveness is a major focus of Thich Nhat Hanh, who is a Vietnamese Buddhist and probably has more to forgive than most people.

Do you think that one should act to prevent evil, or always just wait for it to happen and then apply justice? If the former, then society's concern to respond to abuse, regardless of the individual victim's forgiveness, seems legitimate. Within society, only the law can punish or remit punishment, and the victim can forgive the offender, but cannot exercise mercy personally and must appeal for clemency if that is appropriate.

"You seem hung up on countering Christianity: forgiveness is a major focus of Thich Nhat Hanh, who is a Vietnamese Buddhist and probably has more to forgive than most people.

Do you think that one should act to prevent evil, or always just wait for it to happen and then apply justice? If the former, then society's concern to respond to abuse, regardless of the individual victim's forgiveness, seems legitimate. Within society, only the law can punish or remit punishment, and the victim can forgive the offender, but cannot exercise mercy personally and must appeal for clemency if that is appropriate."

I seem to be missing your point.

What does any of the above have to do with the hypocrisy of advocating unconditional love and forgiveness, and, at the same time, advocating human punishment for transgressions? I think it is very nice that there are people who ARE consistent about such matters or have been (e.g., Adin Ballou, Leo Tolstoy, etc), but most of the people I've been talking to in this thread and the other referenced thread aren't. They speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. Perhaps they should be excused such hypocrisy because they purport to be Christians?

>356 MyopicBookworm: one should act to prevent evil

That's very much the focus of a lot of the forgiveness and reconciliation programmes in countries such as I have mentioned. It's not just about personal, private, secret, individual forgiveness; it's about creating a climate where such atrocities don't happen again.

Edited to add: Thich Nhat Hanh is one of my favourite authors.

How do sexual abusers cover their tracks? (BBC)

Boy Scouts release files on suspected child sex abusers (BBC)

Convicted bishop is Catholic hierarchy's elephant in the room (NCR)

'We need national church sex inquiry' (The Australian)

Australia PM Julia Gillard announces child abuse probe (BBC)

Retired bishop held in child sex abuse investigation

Retired bishop arrested on suspicion of child sex offences

I'm not sure how much of a surprise this is, given that Peter Ball resigned as a bishop in 1993 after admitting "gross indecency" with a 19-year-old man (at a time when the homosexual age of consent was still 21).

No surprises at all with this lot.

Bishop's arrest part of broad inquiry into Chichester diocese child abuse (Guardian)

Police receive further abuse complaints against retired bishop (Guardian)

Interesting to note that this comes as a result of the church's own investigations, and a "safeguarding consultant" is part of the church's effort to make sure that this type of thing doesn't happen again.

The investigation comes after Lambeth Palace gave Sussex police two reports from a Church of England safeguarding consultant. These reports contain reviews of church files relating to matters relating to the safeguarding of young people in the Chichester diocese during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Catholic teaching institute liable for abuse at school (BBC)

Thousands of children are sexually abused by gangs and groups in England each year (BBC)

USCCB should disinvite bishops in sex abuse cases from conference (NCR)

>370 John5918:
At least in the case of Bishop Bransfield, there appears to be no good foundation for placing him on the list of disgraced bishops.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15044

When an allegation was made about him in 2007 about fondling a student in the 1970s, the alleger refused to cooperate with the prosecutor's office. Since Bransfield's name re-surfaced in this year's trial of another priest, the Archdiocese asked the prosecutor's office to re-visit the allegation, and the prosecutor has stated that it is unlikely that charges will be brought.

ETA a more complete story of Bransfield's name coming up in this year's trial:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-23/news/32789091_1_bishop-michael-j-bransfiel...

He is my bishop, so I've been following the story. I don't particularly admire him, but I would like the fuller story to be available. I do object to the classy pieces of real estate that US priests seem to have in abundance.

'White witch coven' took part ritualistic sex abuse of young girls, court told (Guardian)

Sir Cyril Smith: Former MP sexually abused boys, police say (BBC)

Cyril Smith abuse case: 'Justice has been cheated' (BBC)

This case and that of the late Sir Jimmy Saville (>326 John5918:-7) give an insight into attitudes towards powerful figures a few decades ago, as well as legal practice at the time.

Despite no charges after inquiries in 1970 and the 1990s, the CPS {Crown Prosecution Service} said procedural changes meant a prosecution would have been pursued today... "The decision {not to prosecute} made in 1970 would not be made by the CPS today"

While not excusing such behaviour, it does help to shed light on how religious institutions and bodies like the Boy Scouts were able to get away with it along, apparently, with the BBC and the political establishment.

>372 John5918:

Ouch.

With each new revelation of cases such as these, it is becoming increasingly clear that the sexual abuse crisis had less to do with any specific circumstances of the Roman Catholic Church and more to do with the general power dynamics of twentieth-century western society.*

-----------------------
ETA: See Tim's comment below for an important caveat on just what type of power dynamics we're talking about here.

372: That looks a lot like the alleged "Satanic" rings of abusers that got people in the U.S. and U.K. hysterical in the 1970s and 1980s. Those allegations about such "Satanic" rings were shown to be built on bad interviewing techniques and shoddy investigatory methods.

The difference I can see is that in those older cases, the police found the evidence to be so flimsy that they often just dropped the cases when it became clear the evidence was just not believable. I have to wonder if this is more of the same, or if these allegations are better supported.

>375 nathanielcampbell:

I agree that it's not about the Catholic church, but, the current case aside, the problem isn't "the general power dynamics of twentieth-century western society." If anything it's the power dynamics of pre-20c. western society. That is, the institutions hit hard by this tend to be the ones that have functionaries with particularly high status, and that have powerful, insular hierarchies to protect that status, move people around, etc.

The Hunt disputes the innocence of infants (Guardian)

Thomas Vinterberg's account of small-town paedophilia panic troubles the idea that child accusers must always be believed...

We didn't need the McAlpine affair to remind us that our era sustains a witch-hunt of which the middle ages might have been proud. Since the late 1970s, successive houndings of supposed paedophiles have done little to prevent the recurrence of the phenomenon...

Australians debate seal of confession in cases of sex offenses (NCR)

A statement by Australia's Federal Attorney General Nicola Roxon that the national royal commission into child sex abuse should look into requiring Catholic priests to break the seal of confession in cases of serious sex offenses generated much discussion inside and outside the church...

Roxon... said that of far more importance was the failure to report to police known cases of abuse and "open secrets" that came to the attention of priests and church authorities by means other than the confessional...

Response to abuse has been slow, stymied by Vatican (NCR)

Yeah, no way. Priests should go to prison rather than break the seal of confession.

>380 timspalding: As the Attorney General says, of far more importance was the failure to report to police known cases of abuse and "open secrets" that came to the attention of priests and church authorities by means other than the confessional. Later in the article a retired bishop says, Offenders in this field, in pedophilia, do not go to confession and confess.

In virtually all the cases of cover ups, the abuse was known through normal means and was reported within the Church, but not to the police, and therein lies the problem. It was reported by all sorts of people, often including the victims and their families, or by colleagues who became aware of it, but it was covered up. It had nothing to do with confessional secrets.

Florida reform school abuse scandal widens (Guardian)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20697738

UK police have set up Operation Fairbank to investigate allegations by Labour MP Tom Watson of a paedophile ring in high places.

Mr Watson said in October that police should investigate claims of a "powerful paedophile ring" linked to a previous prime minister's "senior adviser" and Parliament.

Jimmy Savile assaulted children as young as 10, report reveals (Guardian)

The number of institutions identified in the inquiry raises the spectre of a systemic failure that spread into every corner of British society...

Edited to add updates about the report:

Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals extent of abuse (BBC)

Police errors left Jimmy Savile free to 'groom the nation' (Guardian)

Jimmy Savile Sex Abuse 'Shocking But Rare' (Sky News)

The NSPCC says the majority of offences against children are carried out by family members - which is where the real problem lies...

What do people make of the appointment of a Boston lawyer-priest to supervise internal investigation and prosecution of Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children? It sounded to me like a bad PR move at best, and maybe also to the Vatican also, given the timing of the announcement (just before Christmas) when it might escape close scrutiny by the media.

"Yesterday (Dec 22, 2012), Pope Benedict XVI appointed Rev. Robert W. Oliver, a Boston canon lawyer, to be the “Promoter of Justice” at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome. A major portion of the job of the Promoter of Justice is the supervision of the Church’s internal investigation and prosecution of Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children."

"After the Pope’s announcement, Rev. Oliver got a no confidence vote from one of Boston’s leading child protection advocates. Anne Barrett Doyle, Co-Director of Bishop Accountability, commented to the New York Times that: “Rev Oliver is a champion of accused priests, which obviously does not bode "well for the job he will do as the promoter of justice.”"

http://pinellas.legalexaminer.com/miscellaneous/vaticans-new-sex-abuse-prosecuto...

>385 margd:: "After the Pope’s announcement, Rev. Oliver got a no confidence vote from one of Boston’s leading child protection advocates. Anne Barrett Doyle, Co-Director of Bishop Accountability, commented to the New York Times"

That seems par for the course, doesn't it? I mean, no matter who the Pope appointed for the task, they weren't going to be good enough and would be criticized by folks like SNAP.

You'll notice that Ms. Doyle doesn't actually substantiate the claim that "Rev. Oliver is a champion of accused priests," unless, of course, it is to mean that Fr. Oliver will give accused priests the due process of canon law.

Shouldn't a "promoter of justice" be concerned that no injustice is done, whether to victims or to priests before the accusations are proven?

#386: Shouldn't a "promoter of justice" be concerned that no injustice is done, whether to victims or to priests before the accusations are proven?

That's not a possibility. You must either err on the side of being unjust to the priest and remove him from duty while accusations are pending, or err of the side of being unjust to those he's hurting by doing nothing until the accusation is proven.

>387 prosfilaes: I think that's a false dichotomy. It is already standard practice to remove a priest from active duty once he is accused, just as you would with a teacher, policeman or other professional. But it is still important to ensure that he receives justice and is otherwise treated as innocent until proven guilty. It's also possible that even if the case doesn't go to court or he is proven innocent by a court, there might still be internal proceedings (again, as would happen with the police, at least in UK, where a policeman who is not guilty of a crime might still have committed an internal disciplinary offence).

Child abuse: NSPCC urges swift reporting of suspicions (BBC)

Most people who suspect children are being abused do not report their suspicions quickly enough, a children's charity is warning.

The NSPCC is urging people to act on their concerns rather than waiting for certainty "which might never come".

Fewer than one in five would report their suspicions straight away, a new survey for the charity suggests...

~386

Always championing the underdog, aren't you Nathaniel? Something you learned from the NT?

>390 lawecon:: "Always championing the underdog, aren't you Nathaniel? Something you learned from the NT?"

So you would consider it "promoting justice" to punish someone who is falsely accused?

ETA: I'm not saying that any of the priests accused of sexual molestation are being falsely accused. I simply don't know. That's why we have procedures of investigation and adjudication, to determine whether an accusation is true or false.

But to assume that an accusation is true from the get-go and that no due process is required in its adjudication is itself a miscarriage of justice.

What if I were to accuse lawecon of sexual molestation? Would it be just to assume him guilty simply because the accusation has been made?

Catholic cardinal stripped of duties as LA diocese child abuse files released (Guardian)

Archbishop Jose Gomez said he had stripped his predecessor, the retired cardinal Roger Mahony, of all public and administrative duties. "I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behaviour described in these files is terribly sad and evil... There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had the duty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed"...

Mahony's former top aide, Thomas Curry, also stepped down as bishop of Santa Barbara.

>391 nathanielcampbell:

Did he have to be a priest, canonically?

The Catholic church has a lot of people it could call on without calling on a priest—someone with inherent institutional duties and loyalties that may conflict with what's needed of them. The hierarchy has power over a priest the way they don't have over an equally qualified layman, not to mention that a priest will inevitably have personal connections—no doubt mostly at a remove or two—to the individuals under suspicion.

I am wondering how the Catholic hierarchy can survive, if it doesn't change and soon.

A new book will be out shortly, Why Priests? A Failed Tradition by Garry Wills: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/bruni-catholicisms-curse.html?_... .

>394 margd:

I got it early. He's agreed to an email interview for the LibraryThing State of the Thing newsletter! :)

A Catholic priest has been arrested in connection with alleged child abuse at a London guest house during the early 1980s... (BBC)

>394 margd: It has also helped to turn many Catholics away from the church, while prompting others to regard its leaders as ornamental and somewhat irrelevant distractions. They cherish the essence and beauty of their religion. They just can’t abide the arrogance of many of its appointed caretakers.

This quote from the linked article is all too true, in my experience, and perhaps helps to answer the surprise that some atheists have at Catholics who remain staunchly Catholic in the face of the dysfunctional behaviour of some of their leaders.

A spate of articles in the NCR:

In Los Angeles, a victory for truth

To those familiar with the protocols of the Catholic hierarchy, the news was stunning. The archbishop of Los Angeles publicly rebuked his predecessor, a cardinal, for his failures in dealing with the priest sex abuse scandal... it broke with the unspoken but nearly ironclad rule of the culture of Catholic hierarchy that bishops do not publicly criticize other bishops... the language Gomez used was blunt and unqualified...

Vatican official says ending clerical sexual abuse is long-term effort

Los Angeles parishioners view documents' release, Mahony suspension with anger, sadness

New Vatican sex abuse prosecutor praises media

Milwaukee priest proposes replacing Mahony speech with conference on sex abuse

Mahony responds to ban: 'Not once' did successor raise questions

Cardinal Mahony barred from public ministry in Los Angeles

It is long past time for those in power to speak clearly.

Vatican impeded Mahony attempts to remove priests, files show.
Newly released documents trace the cardinal's frustration with ongoing delays in his efforts to get some accused abusers out of the priesthood.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mahony-vatican-20130216,0,1445263.story?...

Catholic Church in Scotland 'knew of 20 child sex abuse allegations' (BBC)

'Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal (BBC)

The Catholic Archbishop of Durban, Wilfrid Fox Napier, has described paedophilia as a psychological "illness, not a criminal condition"...

Technically, he's right. Being a psychopath is a mental illness: being a mass murderer is a criminal condition. But once you've acted on paedophilia, the habit is notoriously hard to shake.

>403 MyopicBookworm: I think Napier might have got less flak if he had added that it is an incurable mental illness and that those suffering from it remain a danger to society. People with mental illnesses need to be treated, but society also needs to be protected from them. Acting out the mental illness may still be deemed a criminal offence. Alcoholics and drug addicts who murder someone still go to prison, but they might get a lesser sentence than a premeditated murderer and, at least in a good prison system (does such exist in real life? Scandinavia, maybe?), they will also receive treatment for their addiction disease.

Major sex abuse uncovered in Joliet, Ill., diocese
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/major-sex-abuse-uncovered-joliet-ill-dioces... linking to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/joliet_romeoville/chi-open-file...

"The documents state that between 1973 and 1988, more than 10 percent of the diocese's priests were credibly charged with abuse."

Ugh. That's as bad as Boston. In general I think the main problem is hierarchical—moving priests around. But in a few places—Boston and here—the numbers are too high to excuse the usual comparisons with families, camp counselors and so forth. More than 10% of parents are not, in fact, sexual abusers.

I am still curious about what is going on in this continuing thread.

EVERY authoritarian social organization that I know of suffers from abuse. The abuse may be financial or it may be sexual or whatever, but it is always there. That is the nature of a structure where the "laity" (or whatever they're called in that structure) are subordinate to and defer to the "clergy" or "priesthood" (or whatever they're called in that structure). It is to be expected. It is not "man bites dog."

Yet you guys go on and on and on about sexual abuses in the RC Church. What is the point? Are you really anti-Catholic, or perhaps you think by "tsk tsking" about these matters you are somehow separating yourselves from the necessary and expected behavioral consequences of an institution to which you feel a strong attachment?

Could you clarify what is going on in this thread?

>406 lawecon: Thank you, lawecon. As a non-Catholic you can make the point about other institutions having abuse, and cover ups. When we Catholics make the same point (along with the reminder that in recent years we have done a great deal to try to reduce the problem) we are accused of being defensive, complacent, etc. My own motivation for posting on this thread is usually, whilst admitting the scale of the historic problem, to try to demonstrate what we are doing to reduce abuse and cover-ups, as this is absent from much of the media coverage and those who "tsk, tsk".

>405 timspalding: It is indeed disturbing to find a diocese that is way above the national averages for both clergy and non-clergy.

I think the linked article raises an interesting question about what is the point of continued publicity. It is correctly pointed out that it might be cathartic for the victims, and maybe it has raised one or two more names of people who need to be prosecuted (but the police don't need a newspaper article in order to follow those leads). In terms of preventing it happening again, however, I think further detailed exposure of the past is a little superfluous. The Church has already acknowledged how appalling the crimes were and has already taken significant steps to reduce the opportunities for it to happen again. Further news stories will not add to that dynamic.

One can never have too much sunlight.

As teenagers, two men in our extended family had close association with priests. Nothing was ever said, and yet, when they later made rather unusual, dramatic life choices, we wondered... With sunlight, families will never again have to wonder--and that would be a blessing, too, for the hapless, innocent priests who find themselves unjustly tarred by the Roman collar that they wear.

Two others, from old-Catholic branch of the family, were molested in some way, but I don't know by whom--something my mum mentioned in passing when I was young, and I didn't press for detail, but now I wonder. Three countries for the four of them--not just the US. (ETA: Three continents, actually.)

>406 lawecon:

What's going on in the this thread is largely that a number of us who are concerned with the topic are sharing links and occasional opinions.

I've never really understood your attitude about the clergy sex-abuse scandal, Lawecon. Perhaps you'd explain more.

From my perspective, the real scandal isn't the abuse itself but the immoral way the hierarchy responded to it. However, in at least a few dioceses—Boston, and apparently in the suburbs of Chicago—the percentage of abusers was so high (over 10% of priests!) it ought to prompt a deeper question: Why were so many Catholic priests pedophiles?

>408 John5918:

Acknowledging the crimes fully would require acknowledging the role the hierarchy played, and disciplining bad actors accordingly. The church has done a fair job of exposing past crimes—a fair job after much time and legal action—and an excellent job of instituting rules to prevent abuse in the future. The priests themselves have been brought to account, to the minimal extent they could be. But it has done virtually nothing against the bishops and others who protected the priests, held off legitimate legal action and put children in repeated danger. True acknowledgement might not require packing Law, Mahoney and a dozen others off to monasteries for a life of penance—although that would be a good start—but it requires far more than's been forthcoming.

~407

Well, let me go a step further. Sexual abuse of all sorts, including pedophilia, is rampant in the Haredi communities. There are numerous reports and lawsuits. It isn't just the Catholic Church. Not nearly. And talk about defensive. Read this: http://forward.com/articles/172957/yeshiva-rabbi-bluntly-warns-sex-abuse-reports...

~410

"I've never really understood your attitude about the clergy sex-abuse scandal, Lawecon. Perhaps you'd explain more."

My attitude is pretty much what I expressed in post 406 - you don't wring your hands, you don't have a 400 post thread (one of several) etc. over behavior that is expected or should be expected. Any human institution where there are superiors and subordinates is an institution where the difference WILL BE used to permit those with power to abuse their power, "using" those who don't have power (or other resources of the institution).

Some abuse may be something as trivial as lavish living by some of those with power, when the institution encourages plain and basic living. Some abuse may be the next level - where there is actual embezzlement from the institution. Some abuse may reach the level of having "induced" sex with female subordinates or engaging in pedophilia or stealing from those without power (e.g., church pawnsie schemes).

Some sort of abuse is, however, "normal" in an institution structured in this way. That is not startling. It is not unusual. It happens all the time.

The only reason I can think of for all the exaggerated hand wringing is that the Catholics participating in this thread (and/or the critics of the Catholic Church) really really believe that the Catholic Church is not a human institution, and that scandal in such a divine institution which would be "dog bites man" scandal in a human institution, is thus an extraordinary affront to metaphysics and ethics that could never be imagined. It is worse than genocide. It is worse than war. It is worse than the extinction of the human race. It is HORRIBLE.

Well, it isn't desirable, and it should be dealt with, but it just isn't that unusual. Deal with it but cease the exensive and unending whining and the criticism.

>412 lawecon:: "you don't wring your hands, you don't have a 400 post thread (one of several) etc. over behavior that is expected or should be expected. Any human institution where there are superiors and subordinates is an institution where the difference WILL BE used to permit those with power to abuse their power, "using" those who don't have power (or other resources of the institution). "

So then why did you bother starting the thread, Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss, lamenting the U.S.' continued abuse of civil rights via drones?

Or Merry Christmas for Some, lamenting the treatment of detainees at Gitmo, a topic which already had a thread, started in 2007 and with the latest post earlier this month, An American Gulag?

Of course, you can even take a thread on marijuana and turn it onto your favorite pet topic of Gitmo, so should we be surprised that you "wring your hands" and have several threads of various length "over behavior that is expected or should be expected. Any human institution where there are superiors and subordinates is an institution where the difference WILL BE used to permit those with power to abuse their power, "using" those who don't have power (or other resources of the institution)"?

~413

See what I mean, John.

>412 lawecon: Well, it isn't desirable, and it should be dealt with, but it just isn't that unusual. Deal with it but cease the exensive and unending whining and the criticism.

I think to a large extent that's what many within the Church want to do and indeed have tried to do, namely deal with it. But it seems to be a story that just won't go away.

415

Well, it should go away. Perhaps if you used the technique I have been using recently, and ignored the clamor of the ignorant?

> 410. the real scandal isn't the abuse itself but the immoral way the hierarchy responded to it.

From my perspective, the real scandal is the continuing failure of the Church to acknowledge the spiritual trauma experienced by the victims and to take formal, active, organized steps to assess and treat that trauma.

When the institutional Church has responded to victims it generally has offered psychological but not spiritual counseling. Indeed it appears that Church authorities, all of whom are clerics, are hardly cognizant of the nature and effects of the spiritual trauma. There is no available evidence that any Church office, from the Vatican to national bishops' conferences to local dioceses ever put into place programs or policies to assess the spiritual damage and then take steps to respond to it.

Priority number one obviously would be the direct victims of the abuse. The damage to them would be physical, psychological and spiritual. But there would also be secondary victims, including the families and friends of the immediate victims, who would also suffer psychological and spiritual injury. Would it be going too far to consider as victims the millions of faithful Catholics who have been stunned by the disclosures and who well may have suffered personal crises of faith as a result?

>412 lawecon:

I was hoping there was more to your opinion. As it is, I find it simply half-baked. Yes, it's clear that pedophilia happens in many contexts, and is a particular problem when certain people are given particular power or deference—religions, certainly, but also some secular institutions.(1) However, the arguments so many have made seem to pass through like neutrinos through tissue paper.

First, while other institutions have pedophiles, the Catholic church was particularly bad at handling them, not only failing to believe parishioners—common enough—but actually believing them and then acting in the institutions' interests, not the victims', moving them to other parishes and dioceses, moving them out of the state and country to avoid investigation, etc. The scope of the coverups and transfers was truly extraordinary, as anyone who'd read about some of the more prominent examples, such as LA and Boston, would know. I'm unclear if you're simply completely ignorant of this phenomenon, doubt that it existed or what.

Second, while pedophiles exist in many institutions, the rate among Catholic priests appears to be very unusually high—rising as high as 10-15% of active priests in some dioceses.

Third, even if you've "solved" the whole problem (in fact, you don't seem to even know the question), there still remains the question of effects. Orthodox Jewry, the Boy Scouts and public schools have not seem the same sort of financial and morale ruin from pedophilia as the Catholic church in the US has. Some of us are interested in that topic.

My general impression is that you have a general ideological complaint—that the Catholic church is an "authoritarian organization"—which by a process of magical thinking turns into a grand unified theory. You are then dismissive of all facts, analysis and discussion of this problem as somehow failing to pay your little theory the respect it deserves.

---

1. If you really only mean your bête noire, Orthodox Jews, well, who cares? If it's just Catholics and them, you have two weird and serious problems, one of which is demographically 1,000 times larger than the other! Yes, Greece and the corner store both have debt problems. I'm more interested in talking about Greece.

>417 jburlinson: the continuing failure of the Church to acknowledge the spiritual trauma experienced by the victims and to take formal, active, organized steps to assess and treat that trauma... When the institutional Church has responded to victims it generally has offered psychological but not spiritual counseling

Those are generalisations which may not stand up to close scrutiny, although I don't deny that the response has been patchy, with some dioceses performing very poorly. The cases which get media attention are usually the negative ones. Positive ones are not news.

As an example, I have on my computer 5 professional/academic papers written on the subject between 2002 and 2008, sent to me a while ago by a priest in South Africa who is involved in treating people who have suffered sexual abuse by clergy. None of the papers are written by clerics, and of the seven authors and co-authors, five are women. In an e-mail conversation, he refers specifically to treating the spiritual trauma, which is certainly part of his ministry. That's just one national bishops' conference. I assume similar things are happening in others.

> 419. I'm glad to hear that there is interest, at least in some conferences. But your message does puzzle me a little. You make a point of saying that none of the authors of the papers on spiritual trauma are clerics. That strikes me as odd. Isn't spiritual health the primary concern of churchmen?

My impression is that whatever steps are being taken are happening at the regional or local level, or perhaps only at the individual level. Is that the case? Maybe I have a faulty understanding of the Church's mode of promulgating policy and developing programs of instruction & counseling, but I would have assumed that there would have been a more coordinated effort.

Would you say there's a shared understanding within the Catholic Church as to the impact of sexual abuse on a child's spiritual formation? I would think that would be the basis of developing any kind of treatment or counseling program. Maybe I'm just ignorant of what the Church is doing.

At any rate, I'd be interested in reading the various papers you've referred to. Are they publicly available do you think?

>420 jburlinson:

What percentage of those abused remain in the church? I would suspect it's not large.

> 421. What percentage of those abused remain in the church? I would suspect it's not large.

From the Catholic perspective, wouldn't that be a calamity for those who left the church, considering that "outside the Church there is no salvation"?

Or, at least, wouldn't that thought be lurking in the mind of the apostate?

>422 jburlinson:

That's not how Catholics understand salvation. (True, the phrase is Catholics, but Catholic theology by no means confines salvation to those who are visibly part of the Catholic church, or even believe in God.) A Catholic who turned from the Catholic church to another Christian church would not be an apostate either.

But yes, it is a tragedy. As has often been remarked, priestly abuse was worst where faith was strongest. That is, priests tended to prey on the children of the most committed and devout households—the families that knew the priests and had them over, the ones that sent their kids to be altar boys, etc.

> 423. As has often been remarked, priestly abuse was worst where faith was strongest.

Again, that's what leads me to wonder how the Church deals with the spiritual damage inflicted on those faithful souls.

A Catholic who turned from the Catholic church to another Christian church would not be an apostate either.

I would think it more likely that there would be a tendency for victims to turn from Christianity altogether, maybe even losing their faith in God. They would certainly struggle with a concept of a God who would employ their abuser as His representative on earth. How does the Church address that question?

I think it varies, and it's not a question I know much about. I gather settlements have often included counseling. In our diocese, we have a yearly mass devoted to the victims.

FWIW, priests are not "god's representative on earth." But, yes, I'm sure it's absolutely soul-crushing.

>420 jburlinson: You make a point of saying that none of the authors of the papers on spiritual trauma are clerics

That was in response to your comment that clerics "are hardly cognizant of the nature and effects of the spiritual trauma". We do not rely only on clerics.

My impression is that whatever steps are being taken are happening at the regional or local level

The idea that the Church is like a corporation where the CEO and head office decide everything is mistaken. Both theologically and practically the diocesan bishop has a great deal of autonomy, and the national bishops' conference is also an important actor. Subsidiarity, or having decisions made at the appropriate level, is part of how the Church works. However it's generally felt that the last two popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have tried to limit that and to centralise authority in the Vatican.

Would you say there's a shared understanding within the Catholic Church as to the impact of sexual abuse on a child's spiritual formation? I would think that would be the basis of developing any kind of treatment or counseling program.

My South African correspondent told me last year, "there is no consensus as to a 'treatment of choice' or 'best practice' intervention formulation specifically for victims/survivors of childhood sexual abuse by clergy. While many of the needs of survivors of clergy perpetrated abuse are similar to 'general population' survivors, treatment needs do differ, especially in the area of spiritual trauma."

Let me see if any of those papers are online and I'll get back to you on that.

~418

"I was hoping there was more to your opinion. As it is, I find it simply half-baked..." (blah, blah, blah....)

Well, Tim, once again I'm just not up to your standards. Mea culpa.

>410 timspalding: However, in at least a few dioceses—Boston, and apparently in the suburbs of Chicago—the percentage of abusers was so high (over 10% of priests!) it ought to prompt a deeper question: Why were so many Catholic priests pedophiles?

Sadly, not just Boston and Chicago: "An internal report in Germany implicated over 60 priests in more than 500 cases of sexual abuse." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21731439

> 428. Sadly, not just Boston and Chicago: "An internal report in Germany implicated over 60 priests in more than 500 cases of sexual abuse.

Is there any evidence that the priests in Boston & Chicago (and Germany) were aware of each other's activities, perhaps even facilitating each other in some way? If there was some sort of network of abusers in these locations, that might account for the higher percentages.

Does it appear that, say, Boston's abusive priests knew each other and acted as some sort of support group, formally or informally?

>429 jburlinson:

My theory is that the diocese was particularly bad at screening to enter the seminaries and the priesthood. The alternative is, basically, that these are the normal case—the numbers are what you get when there's enough attention to the issue, victims feel they can speak out and that it might do them some good to do so. Of course, although some studies have attempted to separate out "credibly accused," but you're going to have both falsely accused priests and victimizing priests who never got accused. The Jay Report, I believe, had 2% of those accused spending a day in jail.

Pope Francis calls for action on clerical sex abuse (BBC)

Edited to add the Grauniad's article on it:

Pope orders Vatican officials to tackle child sex abuse scandals

There's an article with a rather populist headline in today's Grauniad/Observer, Catholic priests unmasked.

But I was struck by a large notice in the newsletter in the US parish which I attended this morning, from the Vicar General of the Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend. It states clearly that "To abuse a child is a sin". It encourages anyone who knows about child abuse to notify the civil authorities (noting that Indiana law requires this), gives the contact details of the diocesan Victim Assistance Coordinator as well as the Vicar General who can both be contacted in addition to the civil authorities if a priest or deacon is involved, and also gives a link to the relevant part of the diocesan website.

Part of the problem, though, is that the church hierarchy forgot that child abuse is not only a sin but also a crime (so the mention of civil authorities is a positive sign).

>410 timspalding: ...the percentage of abusers was so high (over 10% of priests!)..

This factoid had me wondering how many of us had unknowingly received the Eucharist from the hands of a child abuser or his protector. Now I'm wondering at the cognitive dissonance that must occur in church leaders who urge, say, that supporters of marriage equality should skip Communion?? Clericalism is alive and well in our neck of woods it seems! :(

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/08/gay-marriage-supporters-ski...

> 432 Thanks for Grauniad/Observer link. A good reminder of what's at stake, victim-wise.

>434 margd: supporters of marriage equality should skip Communion

One thing that has struck me in the USA is the very high percentage of people at Mass who receive communion. It looks to me to be pretty close to 100% in the Masses I've been to over the last couple of months. In Africa generally it is much lower because of "marriage irregularities", usually either polygamy or the fact that a couple is married according to traditional custom but not married in Church.

The other random fact that struck me is how few of the congregation in the USA I have seen take communion from the chalice, despite the fact that there are plenty of ministers of communion and it is freely accessible. We don't usually have communion under both kinds at home so we are always happy when the opportunity arises, as it does here every Sunday.

Could you clarify a bit further. I don't get the distinctions you have made.

>436 lawecon: Is that question for me regarding >435 John5918:?

Yes.

> 435 One thing that has struck me in the USA is the very high percentage of people at Mass who receive communion...pretty close to 100%

In my experience, participation rates are similar, though maybe not quite as high, in Canada. I think that nowadays not as many people mind the conditions for receiving communion, e.g. low participation on Holy Days of Obligation and Penance opportunities c.f. Sunday/Christmas/Easter communion. Some priests seem more inclusive in whom they welcome, whereas clerics like the Archbishop of Detroit might find it difficult to police large parishes with transient and/or unregistered churchgoers. I've only ever seen one person challenged--a teenaged boy, whom the Eucharistic Minister did not see consume his wafer. That very large parish had found wafers discarded in the parking lot, etc., and was focussed on preventing that kind of disrespect. At the same church, I was surprised to see a non-Catholic colleague take communion at a funeral mass. Meanwhile, those of us with "marriage irregularities" try not to be trampled nor to pose trip-hazards in the pew!

>438 lawecon: OK, where to start... there are two different issues in that post, I think.

1) Some Catholics believe that you should not receive holy communion if you are in "a state of sin". That's different from having committed "a sin". They would consider being in an irregular marriage as being in a continuous and intentional state of sin.

2) Holy communion consists of the bread and the wine which become the body and blood of Christ (let's not get into a discussion on transubstantiation and what that statement actually means!), referred to as two "kinds". For a number of practical reasons, in many places holy communion is only received by the congregation under one kind, the bread/body, not the wine/blood, although the priest(s) always take both.

When my ex and I lived in Europe, she would take communion when we visited Catholic churches, but I would not. (We are both Protestants, baptized Presbyterian.) Her reasoning was that communion was communion, no matter who offered it, and just because the priest offering it was not aware of that fact was no reason to keep her from taking it. (Kind of like Augustine's argument against the Donatists.) I felt that one should respect the grammar of the church one was visiting, and the Church would MUCH rather we not partake. The only time I really wanted to take it was when it was offered by Cardinal Ratzinger, who was not close to being Pope at the time.

>440 John5918:

I had no idea people would celebrate communion just with the bread. Seems kind of strange to me. What kind of reasons would there be?

~440

I think that Point 1) was what I was looking for. Point 2) I was also instructive as to the "kinds" distinction. Thank you for this background.

The only thing remotely similar in my religion is that you have to be a Jew (and not just a prospective Jew or "Godfearer") to be called for an aliyah.

What is an aliyah?

Reading the Torah in Hebrew is a part of most Jewish services. It is considered an honor to be "called up" (on the Bimah) to read the Torah, even if you cannot yourself actually read unpointed Hebrew and have to "read" through delegation of someone who can read unpointed Hebrew (in which case you recite the introductory and closing prayers in Hebrew and touch the corner of your tallis to the Torah scroll at the beginning and end of the text being read, as indicated by the reader. Being "called up" is referred to as "having" or "being given" an aliyah. It was originally by selection by the community elders prior to the commencement of the service, but is now a hybrid of selection and acceptance by the person being called up No one who is not a Jew by birth and conviction or by conversion should be given an aliyah. This is generally abided by even in the most extreme Reform or Reconstructionist shuls, temples or synagogues

442: The routine denial of the chalice to the lay people was one of the issues at the Reformation, notably among the Utraqusts among the Hussites.

>442 eclecticdodo: Before Vatican II it was not done. Now it is allowed, but i snot necessarily the norm. The failure to do it is sometimes just inertia in congregations (or amongst priests) who think it is something new-fangled which they don't like and can't really be bothered to get organised. In order to do it in a way that is efficient, dignified and respectful in a big parish which may have thousands of people at Mass of a Sunday, you need plenty of well-trained Eucharistic ministers, and that needs a bit of organisation. But I've seen it done well in many big parishes.

In Africa some of it is just a problem of logistics for very poor and not very well organised parishes. In Sudan it would have been even more difficult due to Islamic shari'a; it was difficult enough to get Mass wine even for the priest (it had to be imported via the Vatican embassy under diplomatic immunity).

>447 John5918: the failure to (provide wine) is...

due to perception of hygiene issues--though I assume health departments are okay with wine shared from a cup swiped with clean napkin after each person sips?

One large church in our area regularly provides alcohol-free wine and, I think, gluten-free(?) wafer options!

>to anyone willing to answer:

I have some questions, I want to thank you, in advance, for your replies:

Why is communion done so frequently.....shouldn't it be more like Easter, done once a year to remember the ransom sacrifice?
How often was it done in the early church during the time of the apostles?

And also, seeing that there are so many partaking, how could God not have foreseen the hygiene problem with drinking from the same cup?
I am not trying to be funny here, I am thinking that when Jesus celebrated the meal at which he instructed the partaking of the bread and wine, he did it only with his chosen disciples.....he did not do it with all of his followers. So perhaps there is something to the number of participants that should be eating and drinking?

And, if it is to be both the bread and wine, then how could churches/pastors/priests knowingly and willfully not do both? Wouldn't that be a lack of respect for the actual communion?

When I was a baptist, they did communion once a month....and small shot glasses, each encased in a special container with holes, containing the wine were circulated among the perishioners, noone stood. Deacons passed the bread and wine up and down each row of seats. I have often wondered why some stand and make a line. Are there not deacons in the Catholic church?

>447 John5918:
Ah yes, I'm forgetting it has to be actual wine for Catholics. In my church we use grape juice - a great relief to me since I have a violent and potentially life threatening allergy to red wine!

I can see sharing a common cup could cause issues too. The way we celebrate communion in my church is passing round a plate of bread, then lots of little cups which we all drink at the same time "as a sign of our unity in Christ". I find the symbolism helpful and the practicalities much easier than my parents in laws CofE.

At the time of the reformation, communion was served once a year (to the people) although the Mass was celebrated weekly. (This from my Duke prof, David Steinmetz.) Calvin wanted it to be weekly, but the city council of Geneva overrode him, and settled on quarterly. Presbyterians can serve communion today as frequently as weekly, but they must do it at least once a quarter.

As to weekly communion, a colleague of mine started weekly communion at his church. One parishioner came to him to complain and said, "This weekly communion is getting out of hand. It is to the point where every time I sit down for a meal I think of Jesus and.....Oh, that WAS the point. Never mind."

Some say since it is special, it should be done less frequently, so it will remain special. Kind of like eating, which is also pretty special in my book, or coffee, or making love. (As you can tell, I am a proponent of more frequent communion.) We used to do it once a month in my old church although my first two churches did it quarterly.

Nathaniel can probably give you better info on how often the early church did it, although I bet you will find that practices varied.

I'm learning a lot today. I'm used to celebrating communion at least once a month so never thought it was otherwise.

In the Episcopal church I attended, they did communion weekly, as did the Lutheran church were I substituted at times.

>451 Arctic-Stranger:: "Nathaniel can probably give you better info on how often the early church did it, although I bet you will find that practices varied."

I had to pull down some books to refresh my memory; the following is distilled from A Short History of the Western Liturgy by Theodor Klauser and The Banquet's Wisdom by Gary Macy.

The very earliest Christian practices of what came to be known as the "Eucharist", as recorded in the New Testament (see e.g. Acts 2:42-47 and I Corinthians 11:17-34), appear to have been continuances of the Jewish custom of a common meal, usually celebrated at first on Friday evenings, and perhaps later transferred to Saturday evenings. Additionally, the service that was more properly known as "liturgy" was to commemorate the Resurrection each Sunday morning, and consisted of a Service of the Word -- readings, psalms, hymns, prayers, and preaching/teaching. It is this latter form of worship that was likely confessed to the Governor Pliny in Bithynia, ca. 112, as recorded in his letters to the Emperor Trajan concerning these new-fangled Christians (or "Christ-niks", as one professor I know likes to call them)--although even then, they already describe perhaps the shift I describe in the next paragraph.

By the later part of the second century, however, when Justin Martyr wrote in defense of the practices in the First Apology, it would seem that the communal meal (known as the "agape" or "love feast") had come to be separated from the actual remembrance of the Lord's Supper with the bread and wine; the agape meals continued to be celebrated on and off on Friday or Saturday evenings for a few more centuries, but eventually died out. The commemoration of the Lord's Supper, on the other hand, came to be added to the Liturgy of the Word on Sunday mornings as a remembrance and celebration of the Resurrection. It took its name (Eucharist) from the Prayer of Thanksgiving (eucharisteia) that accompanied the commemoration ritual.

Thus, early Christian practice of the Eucharist was celebrated every week, first as part of a continuation of Jewish communal meal practices to begin the Sabbath*, and then soon as a part of the thanksgiving liturgy that celebrated the Resurrection each and every Sunday of the year. Bread (either leavened or unleavened--theological reasons for either were only developed later, as back-formations to explain established practice) and wine (it was always wine until the 19th century, regardless of denomination) were used together.

In the West, it was during the early to mid-Middle Ages that the loss of lay participation and reception every week developed. High medieval (11th-13th cen.) developments in theology stressed the necessity of confession and penance before reception and the necessity of reception at least once a year (as per the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215), although it should be noted that that requirement was considered a minimum, not a maximum. Furthermore, additional elaborations of forms of liturgy beyond the Eucharist itself, as well as a liturgical calendar that proliferated with feasts both of saints and of other events in Christ's life beyond the Resurrection, led to the requirement that priests celebrate Mass daily -- but lay participation came to be neither expected nor required in those daily Masses. Lay attendance and communication at daily mass is a rather recent phenomenon, stemming from the so-called "liturgical movement" of the nineteenth century.

Daily Mass and communication was common in monasteries and other religious communities of the Middle Ages, despite the fact that The Rule of St. Benedict says nothing of it. Intense eucharistic piety became a hallmark of certain religious communities in the later Middle Ages, especially among women (including the beguinages, which were on the borderland between lay and religious) and in the Devotio Moderna, whose blockbuster work, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis devotes its entire last book to the subject. A foundational modern study on the relationship between women and eucharistic piety is Caroline Walker Bynum's Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women.

------------
*There is often a popular but misguided assumption that the Christian practice of celebrating on Sunday was a "redefinition" of the Jewish Sabbath. This is not so. In fact, the Sabbath as a day of rest continued to be practiced without objection for the first few centuries; its keeping died out mainly because of the loss of Jewish influence on Christianity. Rather, from the start, Sunday was kept in addition to the Sabbath, as a celebration specifically and irrevocably of the Resurrection. The idea that Sunday is the first day of the week (and thus Saturday is still the "Sabbath", or seventh day) rather than the last (the seventh) is still reflected, for example, in the way we lay out our calendars (and the fact that in the Romance languages, Saturday is actually called the Sabbath -- e.g. Sabbato, etc.).

ISTR there's some patristic comment on the topic of Sunday as the Eighth Day, the first of the New Week of Creation.

I was brought up in the Low Anglican tradition, where the main morning service was Communion about once a month, and otherwise Morning Prayer, but there were weekly Communion services at 8 and 12 for the handful of the congregation who wanted them. Having then gone to a school and a college with a weekly Eucharist tradition, I felt deprived if I went to a church which didn't have it.

The extremes of interpretation seem both to be covered by Jesus, when he said "do this, as often as you drink it", which could mean "every time you share a cup of wine" or "every time you celebrate the Passover"... I am inclined to suspect that the latter was his original intention.

I would reiterate what Nathaniel said about each Sunday being seen as a sort of mini-celebration of Easter. That's an important part of Catholic liturgical thought.

Nathaniel's explanation of how daily Eucharist came about rings true, but I can't say I'm an expert on that. However I would say that later it came to be seen as doing it often because it is so important, as opposed to the practice of some other denominations of doing it infrequently because it is so important.

Post-Vatican II there was an attempt to reign in the proliferation of masses, by allowing concelebration, by insisting that a priest should not celebrate mass alone but should have a community with him, by discouraging various groups from holding their own masses on a Sunday separate from the parish masses, etc. Then the shortage of priests also led to a reduction in the number of masses in most parishes.

>455 MyopicBookworm:

I am also inclined to believe that it was to be a yearly celebration, marking his death.

I have often thought that the passing of bread and wine to remember his sacrifice should be the yearly celebration......instead of chocolate eggs and bunnies and the whole Easter celebration. That is mho.

But there is still the issue of the numbers........so many partakers of communion, and some churches not doing BOTH bread and wine.

I still think that perhaps the fact Jesus celebrated this evening meal with a small group is somehow significant.

>457 CSailin: Jesus celebrated this evening meal with a small group is somehow significant

There are many occasions when the Eucharist is still celebrated in a small group - house masses, various groups and communities, Basic Ecclesial Communities and Small Christian Communities, even the early morning daily mass in most parishes. But most Catholic parishes are far too big for that to be practical on a Sunday. It would take a massive reorganisation, and a rethink of the ordained ministry, to do that. There is also a value in the sense of solidarity, community and unity in a large gathering.

There are also occasions when the agape and the Eucharist are combined, usually in small groups (and usually off the radar of the hierarchy!)

Another good early source for the Eucharist is The Didache (about 100) chapters 9 & 10. As Nathaniel said, it appears to accompany a common meal though it otherwise doesn't say how often it should take place, as opposed to The Lord's Prayer which it specifically says should be said three times a day.

1) Some Catholics believe that you should not receive holy communion if you are in "a state of sin". That's different from having committed "a sin". They would consider being in an irregular marriage as being in a continuous and intentional state of sin.

To clarify a bit more. Communion must be taken in a "state of grace." Under normal conditions, you must have have committed no mortal sins you have not confessed. Mortal sins are deep and serious sins, undertaken intentionally and with full knowledge. They cut you off from God. What sins are serious is never fully defined, and mortal sins never be objectively defined because they also require unknowable conditions of intentionality and knowledge. But remarriage without an annulment and polygamy are generally considered simple examples, although both would obviously stop being a problem if you agreed to live chastely.

Catholics are not supposed to receive communion unless they are in a state of grace. But the priest should only withhold communion unless that state is known to all. That is, if the priest happens to know you did something terrible, he should still give you communion. But if he and everyone else in the church knows that you're a mafia hitman, giving communion would cause scandal to the faith. In practice, communion is almost never denied. Some Catholics want to "enforce" this--to, for example, deny communion to all Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Most bishops do not do that.

For a number of practical reasons, in many places holy communion is only received by the congregation under one kind, the bread/body, not the wine/blood, although the priest(s) always take both.

It varies a lot. I'd wager to say that, in the US, it's almost always in two kinds on Sunday.

Her reasoning was that communion was communion, no matter who offered it, and just because the priest offering it was not aware of that fact was no reason to keep her from taking it.

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Protestants may be dear people and closer to God than the Catholics there, but they are by definition "not in communion" with the church. Besides "communion is communion" is only intelligible from a Protestant perspective. To us, communion is either communion or a charming simulacrum performed by Protestants.

I had no idea people would celebrate communion just with the bread. Seems kind of strange to me. What kind of reasons would there be?

Well, for example, a daily mass with just a priest can't really offer both, unless he could count on their being a eucharistic minister. As John says, to do it right you need lots of eucharistic ministers--enough to do it and enough to step in when there's a gap.

I am also inclined to believe that it was to be a yearly celebration, marking his death.

We have different ecclesiologies, as previously noted. But this strikes me as very Protestant understanding of it. For most of Christian history, mass was celebrated daily or weekly. Lay reception of the eucharist declined, but the mass was still a mass, and it was the center of Christian worship.

We have different ecclesiologies, as previously noted. But this strikes me as very Protestant understanding of it.

I suppose to a Catholic it sounds very Protestant....however, it is based not on tradition, but on scriptural principle.

Don't you think the Bible should be our highest authority as Christians?

>461 CSailin: Don't you think the Bible should be our highest authority as Christians?

I think it comes down to the fact that Christianity came before the bible. There was a Christian community in existence before the bible was written. Indeed it was written by the Christian community and in some cases (eg some of Paul's letters) it was written to the existing Christian community (or communities). It was several centuries before Christians agreed what should be considered part of the bible. Christianity is based on Christ, not the bible. Now that should not be interpreted as meaning the bible is not important - it is a very important source of revelation for all Christian denominations - but non-protestant denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, most Anglicans, maybe others) recognise that the tradition out of which Christianity and the bible came is also an important source of revelation. Tradition and scripture are complementary, not contradictory.

>462 John5918:

Ah, I finally understood your belief........somehow I did not understand it before.

I will have to think about what you have said, and do some reading, and then perhaps I will come back and share something.

Thanks John.

>460 timspalding:: "Well, for example, a daily mass with just a priest can't really offer both, unless he could count on their being a eucharistic minister."

Not so. I've been to masses (especially small, Tridentine-rite ones) where you knelt at the altar rail, and the priest first came along with the host, and then came around with the chalice. It's doable, unless you have a large crowd, in which case it would likely take too long.

Wine must be prohibitively expensive for less wealthy RC parishes to serve to all?

Since we're OT anyway, here's an amusing story on what the cardinals may have been sipping in Conclave: http://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2013/03/does-the-vatican-use-wine-searcher?ut

(My 'irregular'-spouse thinks he recently made a wine from this region!)

Well is not like everyone gets a glass of a fine claret.

>464 nathanielcampbell: In small group masses the plate with the hosts and the chalice with the wine are sometimes simply left on the altar and people come and serve themselves, or the priest dispenses the host and people serve themselves from the chalice, sometimes by dipping the host rather than drinking. Not sure whether all those are officially allowed or not! But with larger congregations in more formal settings, Eucharistic ministers are needed.

>564 The cost and availability of wine would certainly be an issue in some parts of Africa.

I was thinking in my typical Amero-centric way. Thanks for keeping the world before us, John.

> 465. Wine must be prohibitively expensive...

That's why Thunderbird Wine was concocted.

"What's the word?" "Thunderbird!" "What's the price?" "A dollar twice."

You know, I had never before realized the theological implications of the question, "what's the word?".

As religious wine goes, when I had Passover this year, my host was very clear, over my objections, that you can have Passover without Manischewitz wine, that good wine will serve just as well.

In any case, I'm a little surprised that Catholics wouldn't bend on having wine for the priests even in a nation where alcohol was illegal. The more I think about it, the less I understand it; it's a ceremony, and I never got the impression that your God was one who would be upset about minor changes to that due to necessity.

>470 prosfilaes: My own South Sudanese bishop once scandalised the Italian missionaries by telling them that if we ran out of altar wine (we were in a town that was besieged and completely cut off for months on end) we could use the locally brewed beer, but it never came to it in the end. Some of the Italian nuns were brewing wine, although I'm not sure what fruit they were using. It was pretty awful stuff but it was alcoholic.

>462 John5918:

Christianity is based on Christ, not the bible.

I was reading over some notes and copies of articles I have, and found the following, which kind of reflects where I am in my thinking right now.
Thought I'd share it with you:

First-century Christianity had no temples, built no altars, used no crucifixes, and sponsored no garbed and betitled ecclesiastics.
Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service. “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until
the time of Marcus Aurelius who ruled 161-180 C.E., no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military
service.”—The Rise of Christianity, by E. Barnes, 1947, p. 333.

Just as had been foretold, the spirit of apostasy was already at work before the apostles died.(See.....Acts 20:29, 30; 2Pe 2:1-3; 1Jo 2:18, 19, 22)

Within a period of less than 300 years, the wheat field of Christianity had been overrun with the weeds of apostate antichrists (those against Christ's teachings) to the point where wicked Constantine the Great (himself incriminated in the murder of no less than seven close friends and relatives) figured in events that led to the development of a state religion disguised as “Christianity.”

* * * end of notes * * *

>472 CSailin:

Then Christ lied. He said he would be with us until the end of the age. Churches from the start believed that meant that Christ founded and guided the church, and that the church could not fall into deep error. Yet, if you take your line, there were no Christians between 300—really, 200, since that church looks very Catholic—and after 1500, when Luther arrived on the scene. That's what the Jehovah's witnesses believe, I know. And apparently you. I find that a pretty depressing notion.

Cardinal Newman put it best—"to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." That is, if you don't know much about history, it seems plausible to approach the Bible in a certain positivistic way, dismissing how the church has understood it for millennia and imagining you can reason it all out yourself ab initio. But it doesn't look like the Christianity we know from history--the millennia of Christians worshipping Christ before Luther arrived. From the earliest centuries those Christians centered themselves around everything radical Protestantism came to set itself against—a church of bishops and priests, liturgies, saints, the veneration of Mary, the absolute centrality of the eucharist and its reality, etc.

especially small, Tridentine-rite ones

Catholic Tridentine masses would not have the blood for the laity, though, right?

#473: Churches from the start believed that meant that Christ founded and guided the church, and that the church could not fall into deep error. {...} I find that a pretty depressing notion.

I find the concept that the medieval church was not in deep error to be a pretty depressing notion, myself.

In small group masses the plate with the hosts and the chalice with the wine are sometimes simply left on the altar and people come and serve themselves

That is quite fascinating (and a bit bizarre: buffet mass?). I have never been to any Eucharist, whether Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, or ecumenical, in which people served themselves! The usual model, of course, is that the celebrant serves, or there are ministers who distribute; the only other pattern familiar to me is one where the members of the (small) congregation serve one another in turn around a circle.

>472 CSailin: You may want to read something written within the last 65 years.

Christianity changed a lot over the first several hundred years, and then over the next several hundred years, and over the last several hundred years. One of the reasons it's been so successful is the religion's adaptability. I don't have a problem with that so long as its core tenets remain consistent.

You could look at the 4th century as apostasy or see the Church's sudden emphasis on sacred spaces and monumental building projects as a way to adapt to be acceptable to millions of Pagans who felt it their civic duty to adopt whatever religion their emperor did who grew up believing in places being imbued with holiness and the need to raise monuments in honor of their faith.

Then again, you could see Paul, directly contradicting Christ by casting aside Jewish ritual, as apostasy rather than as a way for a new religion to gain adherents by doing away with what was seen outside Judaism as overly burdensome, tedious, meaningless and sometimes painful ritual.

>472 CSailin: First-century Christianity had no temples, built no altars, used no crucifixes, and sponsored no garbed and betitled ecclesiastics. Early Christians celebrated no state holidays and refused all military service.

Whether or not this is accurate I don't know, as I am not a historian, but what relevance does it have? So Christianity today is different from Christianity two thousand years ago. Is that surprising? The nascent Christian community in the years immediately after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ reflected on their experience of him and what he had taught and witnessed. They began to organise themselves. They began to deal with the different contexts in which they lived. They wrote gospels and letters and, several centuries later, they agreed on which of those writings, and which of the Jewish scriptures, should be designated as their own authoritative scripture (although even today there are still minor differences amongst Christians about which books actually constitute the bible). They had to answer questions which Jesus himself hadn't answered (such as the details of how the community of his followers should be organised) based on their reflections on what he did say.

>473 timspalding:

Then Christ lied

No Tim, Christ did not lie. Christ has helped those desiring to worship God in spirit and truth all throughout history.
Sometimes these brave men and women lost their lives for their Christian stance. Sadly, they also lost their lives for trying to translate the Bible into everyday languages so we could all benefit from God's Holy Word, and be able to compare what God wants us to do, with what man is telling us to do.

As for apostasy Tim, an apostasy among professed Christians was foretold by the apostle Paul at 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
He specifically mentioned certain apostates, such as Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus. (1Ti 1:19, 20; 2Ti 2:16-19)

Among the varied causes of apostasy set forth in apostolic warnings were: lack of faith (Heb 3:12), lack of endurance in the face of persecution (Heb 10:32-39), abandonment of right moral standards (2Pe 2:15-22), the heeding of the “counterfeit words” of false teachers and “misleading inspired utterances” (2Pe 2:1-3; 1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 2:16-19; compare Pr 11:9), and trying “to be declared righteous by means of law” (Ga 5:2-4).

While still making profession of faith in God’s Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ. (Lu 6:46; Mt 24:14; 28:19, 20)

During the period of persecution that the early Christian congregation experienced at the hands of the Roman Empire, professed Christians were at times induced to deny their Christian discipleship, and those who did so were required to signify their apostasy by making an incense offering before some pagan god or by openly blaspheming the name of Christ.

Whatever its apparent basis, whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual, it constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth.—2Th 2:3, 4;

if you take your line, there were no Christians between 300—really, 200, since that church looks very Catholic—and after 1500, when Luther arrived on the scene

I have often wondered why men were killed for translating the Bible into the common language of the people.
Perhaps knowledge is a dangerous thing?
Perhaps once we have certain knowledge, we can no longer be under man's control?

Jesus' words at John 8:32 are very precious to Christians today.
We have a beautiful spiritual heritage........one we should not abandon due to tradition of men.

>477 John5918:

the details of how the community of his followers should be organised) based on their reflections on what he did say.

Were not the early Christians organized?
The certainly were, otherwise, how could Paul write letters to specific congregations?

And don't the scriptures tell us of different issues that rose up inside the congregations, and how they were settled?

There was definite organization. But as I stated in my reply to Tim, when the apostles died.....an apostasy set in.
That is not me saying this, it is what the Bible says.

You may choose to believe the Bible, or not.

>476 cemanuel:

......or see the Church's sudden emphasis on sacred spaces and monumental building projects as a way to adapt to be acceptable to millions of Pagans who felt it their civic duty to adopt whatever religion their emperor did who grew up believing in places being imbued with holiness and the need to raise monuments in honor of their faith.

I have often wondered why christianity would want to adapt to be acceptable to pagans?

Shouldn't early Christians, in a spirit of wanting humankind to be reconciled to God, lovingly taught God's requirements, and abstained from instituting rituals which are not defined in scripture?

>478 CSailin:: "I have often wondered why men were killed for translating the Bible into the common language of the people. "

I think the best answer is that nobody was killed for translating the Bible into the vernacular. (By the way, there were many medieval translations of various portions of the Bible into vernacular languages, especially Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, all at the behest of the Church, not in opposition to it.)

This is one of those malicious myths that continue to be repeated by those interested in destroying the unity of Christ's Body, the communion of saints and fellowship of all faithful Christians.

>480 CSailin:: So why are you using a computer? The early Christians had no computers. Does your church have a sound system? That's apostasy!

>481 nathanielcampbell:

Yes, of course, and the Holocaust never happened.

Are you serious?

>482 nathanielcampbell:

:) thank you for making me smile this morning Nathaniel.
Have a great day.