The German sexual abuse scandal and the Pope

So, I think someone needs to start this, which is surely the biggest "Christianity" issue in the news these days. I'm posting here, not on the Catholic groups, because this isn't only a Catholic topic, and because this group has more conversation.

How bad is the German sexual abuse scandal going to get, and how close will it get to Benedict himself? What should Benedict do or say about it? How likely or unlikely is it that Benedict did not approve or know the convicted priest in question was readmitted to pastoral work? If then-Cardinal Ratzinger did approve the move, how bad is that? Which sort of errors can be excused as errors of the times, of judgment and large organizations, and what sort can't? How "early" on is this, and how large will it get?

I don't have very strong opinions on this, but my feelings are cold dread. Mostly I want to get informed facts and opinions from people who know something. Links would also be good too.

The topic here is pure poison, I realize. I predict this thread will draw some trolls, of the "Catholicism is nothing but boy-buggery!" variety. Perhaps someone may even suggest God doesn't exist—I hear it's happened before on LibraryThing. I humbly propose we smile and ignore them, and stay on-topic.

My thoughts are not so much how close the Pope is to this particular sex scandal, that might be a bigger concern for Catholics.

It just seems to me that sex scandals themselves are so pervasive in the church, that it is time to consider that the church's teachings on sex and the morality of sex are wrong.

Quick change in teaching and practice is needed.

The Catholic Church is prominent in these scandals with its size and visibility, but it is not the only church that has struggled with these problems.

It is time for confession, for acts of repentance, and for change.

The Pope can lead the way.

I know, fairly well, about twenty men of the cloth.

These include clergy of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and non-denominational traditions.

I read this news. Again.

I wondered...

Statistically, there's probably a decent chance that one of these men is "struggling with sexual sin." Over the years, I've already had one pastor outed and removed from duties due to sexual misconduct. According to Christianity Today, back in 2001 much before today's characteristics of the Internet, 37% of pastors indicate they struggle with porn.

I wondered...

Should I email all of these guys?

Guy-to-guy.

This may feel uncomfortable if not inappropriate coming from the laity...

Wanted to share with you how disturbed I am by recent scandals...

If you are...

Get help now.

I haven't done it yet. And I still wonder if I should. How should one word such?

Sometimes, I wonder, if somebody needs to look the Father in the eye just as a good father looks his son in the eye, holding him accountable.

Should I do it?

I might offend.

But what about the children?

I incidently read Mark 10 from my daily lectionary the same day I read of this latest news. I particularly like the imagery of the safe, comforting physicality of Eugene Peterson's translation here of v 13-16.

The people brought children to Jesus, hoping he might touch them. The disciples shooed them off. But Jesus was irate and let them know it: "Don't push these children away. Don't ever get between them and me. These children are at the very center of life in the kingdom. Mark this: Unless you accept God's kingdom in the simplicity of a child, you'll never get in." Then, gathering the children up in his arms, he laid his hands of blessing on them.

The question isn't just what should the Church do, but also what should I do.

1> Unfortunately, there is no 'six-degrees of separation' in this issue. The Pope and his brother were involved (no, I am not saying they abused boys), and more will come out regarding their acts of brushing things under the carpet. This does not, of course, implicate all Catholics in the issue. It does, however, bring to the forefront their need to review the practices of their church hierarchy, and make necessary changes. How? I haven't a clue, since it is an organization run by the very man at the center of the issue.

It is doubtful that any significant changes will be made, but a starter would be to let married men become priests. It's just a thought.

3> I haven't done it yet. And I still wonder if I should. How should one word such?

One shouldn't word it at all, least of all send such a note. It would be the height of rudeness to even suggest such an idea to these men, without cause. Because of a statistic?

We can all imagine some very high-level critique of Catholic sexual teachings and culture that brought this and many other things under its umbrella, but I don't see a straight line between allowing priests to marry and either not having or dealing appropriately with priests who abuse 11 year-old boys. Do you?

Tim,

It seems to me that the entire approach of the church's teaching (not the Catholic Church's teaching) about sex should be reconsidered.

If we have that much discrepancy between public and private behavior?

Why the focus on sex anyway?

The church is about truth, faith, charity, hope, joy, God.

I think there is a direct line between repression and the need to live with public deceit.

Truth should be open.

We had a local celebrity who led a secret life because he could not let out his private homosexuality.

He abused children apparently because he could not have adult relationships.

He went to jail.

We need our priests, as well as ourselves and our neighbors, to be able to live open and honest, to live with the truth.

I get the high-level argument, but it seems to me somewhat tangential, reaching and ideologically opportunistic here. I feel pretty confident that, should I not have married, I would not be abusing boys. And I doubt that those who take vows of poverty are engaging in the most extreme property sins—running Ponzi schemes, or whatever.

Also, while the problem is probably well above "baseline", with hundreds of thousands of priests, you're going to get problems. What you don't need to get is the institutional response. I at least am more concerned with the Church's tendency to protect its own, and avoid "scandal" at all costs.

" I at least am more concerned with the Church's tendency to protect its own, and avoid "scandal" at all costs."

Another church tendency that I despise, not unique to the Catholic denomination, and not unique to the instution of the church either.

Protect our own.
Grab the money.
Save the buildings.
And we don't pay taxes.

I like a church that is about faith.

Sometimes I get disappointed.

Pedophilia does not = gay/lesbian/bisexual orientation. I vehemently disagree with Catholic views on sexuality, but I don't see these child-abuse scandals as primarily about sexuality. They are about power -- adult men willing and able to violate the human rights of children (not just boys, but girls too have been abused). And a hierarchy that turns a blind eye to these matters, that is willing to obfuscate and deny in order to cover them up, and that sees itself as immune to secular laws. As #7 says, "the Church's tendency to protect its own, and avoid 'scandal' at all costs."

Does one find similar problems in other systems of power (e.g., other religious groups, political groups, etc.)? Yes. Does this excuse the Catholic Church's actions? No.

(Standard disclaimer: I'm not a Catholic or any type of Christian, but I'm also not a troll.)

>6 richardbsmith: "He abused children apparently because he could not have adult relationships."

I'm sorry, I don't buy this. Not being able to have an adult relationship (and why? presumably hiding an adult homosexual relationship would be easier than hiding pedophilic abuse) would not make one a pedophile.

And while I think that the church should allow priests to marry (as many priests did, whether sanctioned or not, for most of the first millennium of the church's history), I don't think that has anything to do with abuse of children. I agree that the church's cover-up of this is the issue--outside the church there are pedophiles, too, and that's a legal/moral/psychiatric issue. It's the church's response that is so troubling.

Here is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone: «La Chiesa ha ancora una grande fiducia da parte dei fedeli, solo che qualcuno cerca di minare questa fiducia ma la Chiesa ha con sé un aiuto speciale dall'alto.» So, who exactly is this "qualcuno"?

ejj and essa,

Please do not think I am making any such equation. That was his statement at the time the story developed. He could not participate in adult venues because of his public persona.

My only point is openness is better.

#4

Certainty of rudeness vs. possible avoidance of molested children.

Something to ponder...

Would be nice if the Church didn't cause moral dilemmata as consequence of her own perversions.

5> We can all imagine some very high-level critique of Catholic sexual teachings and culture that brought this and many other things under its umbrella, but I don't see a straight line between allowing priests to marry and either not having or dealing appropriately with priests who abuse 11 year-old boys. Do you?

If a man is sexually satisfied and in a loving relationship with a wife or life-partner, then he is less likely to stray for any reason. This would significantly reduce the number of priests who are sexually repressed and frustrated.

And, since there are a significant number of gay priests, let them have a life-partner. After all, isn't love supposed to be the word of God?

9> The sexual activity of men with boys in any environment is definitely sexual. It is the lying and the cover-up that are about power.

>9 Essa:

I agree with this post.

I would assume sexual abuse has been going on for centuries within the cloistered walls of the Church. There is no need to chose between a doctrinal or institutional explanation for the state of affairs that exists now: both doctrine and long-standing organizational practices contribute to a culture of secrecy, rationalization, and, in truth, criminality. Ultimately, an institution that cannot police itself should be subject to external policing. A question must be raised about criminal justice agencies around the world: why don't these civil agencies protect children from the predatory behavior of priests?

13> Certainty of rudeness vs. possible avoidance of molested children.

Something to ponder...

If you truly believe your statement, I suggest you send this note to every man in your neighborhood, city, county and state. That way, you can say you covered the bases. Avoidance of molesting children by this method? How?

To send an accusatory note to someone, without evidence of wrongdoing falls under the heading of 'guilty by association' - in this case, religion, and as non-religious as I am, this is a mob-mentality. It is wrong by any ethical, moral and religious (if they are telling the truth) tenet. It's called a witch-hunt.

16> why don't these civil agencies protect children from the predatory behavior of priests?

Because the church is unassailable, in the eyes of many and the authorities do not want to appear to be attacking religion. They do want to be reelected, oui?

Strong statement by Hans Kung at http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/ratzingers-responsibility.

Kung, a German Catholic priest and theologian with an international standing, is a former colleague of Benedict, but in this matter he is trenchant in his criticism.

Thank you for posting the Kung article. It was encouraging to read that from someone with his standing.

5> 2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"? In fact, there are numerous psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who see a connection here. (excerpted from the link in #18)

Uh oh, Tim (#5). It appears that I am not the only one who senses that this is a problem. Could it actually be true. In the immortal words of my cousin's ten-year-old: "Duh."

Edited to add: 18> My apologies. I forgot to thank you for this great article.

>9 Essa:

The idea that abuse isn't about sex is a nice formulation. A man who molests 11 year old children is not after what the rest of us are after.

But it also injects this over-simple purity into the matter. Sex isn't this simple, clean thing, undertaken between happy and equal 30-something partners. Sex is this big monster of a thing, tumbled up with everything else in human culture and the psyche, including power. Sometimes and to some people—maybe most—it's joy and sweetness, but dark, tangled weirdness is part of it too.

I think the causality story has to go something like this. Some young Catholics, especially Catholics of decades past, rushed into the priesthood before they had figured their sexuality out. No doubt some rushed into it because they thought dedicating themselves to holiness and abstinence would somehow quash all those weird, unclean thoughts they were having about the boys in their gym class. Some probably had no adult sexual experiences at all and fetishized a youthful one, gay or straight. They entered the priesthood a ball of repression and stunted development and it soured into perversion. Power turned perversion into abuse.

Is that how you guys imagine the causality works?

Frankly, I'm not convinced it has to be this way. If the Catholic church makes the effort it's making now—screening out people who aren't mature, and even encouraging them to have an idea of what they're going to be giving up—doesn't that solve much of the problem—especially as the real problem isn't occasional acts of evil, but an institution that doesn't respond to them?

21> I agree with your points in this post, except for this part:

If the Catholic church makes the effort it's making now—screening out people who aren't mature, and even encouraging them to have an idea of what they're going to be giving up—doesn't that solve much of the problem...

I do not think you can 'screen out' this type of issue in this manner. Maturity is not the only answer to the problem, or there would be no older priests having sex with boys. I believe that celibacy is at the heart of the problem, coupled with the point you made about immaturity of new, immature young priests.

Let's ask ourselves this question: Why is it that the Catholic church seems to have this problem in such a disproportionate magnitude, whereas other formal religions do not seem to have this dilemma?

I think that's a big question. If someone claims they have the simple answer, I bet they don't. My big-enough-to-be-right answer would be: culture.

A piece of church discipline—celibacy for Latin-rite Catholics—might be part of that, but it's not the whole thing.

23> My big-enough-to-be-right answer would be: culture.

This is not a criticism, and I don't think that bird has wings. It is not 'culture' that is taking advantage of those in the care of clergy, it is men, and there are many reasons for the attraction between men and boys, which I have no desire to delve into in this discussion. What is taking place in this scenario is an act that is one-sided, and without consent, and one has to ask how culture is the 'beast' in this context?

No, I'm not using culture as an excuse.

25> No, I'm not using culture as an excuse.

Then..?

> 21 Yes, which is why my post said "not primarily about sexuality."

Let's ask ourselves this question: Why is it that the Catholic church seems to have this problem in such a disproportionate magnitude, whereas other formal religions do not seem to have this dilemma?

It's not just the Catholic Church that has this problem (unfortunately). These scandals are also taking place among Orthodox Jews; Southern Baptists; and Boy Scouts; among others. The Catholic Church is larger and more powerful, though, so it seems reasonable to expect that the problem will be larger and involve more cases.

Edit to add: This is in no way a defense of the Catholic Church or the disgusting scandals. It's just an observation that unfortunately, this does seem to happen in other organizations. Such people, whatever their religion (or none), should be held accountable. The Catholic Church hierarchy, with its lies and denials, seems to disagree. That, from my non-believer's point of view, is where the scandal lies.

16> "So why don't these civil agencies protect children from the predatory behavior of priests?"

How? Which agency? Law enforcement can't do anything until a crime is committed (and observed or reported). Child protective agencies can't do anything until a complaint is filed, can they?

I would suggest that perhaps the parents ought to be the first line of defense here. Maybe they need to be chaperoning their children instead of leaving them alone with priests. I don't know if this is really practical, so maybe there also has to be a lot of conversation with kids about letting the parents know if someone touches them inappropriately, etc.

There is at least one statistical analysis of sexual abuse in the U.S. Catholic Church. Note: not all victims of sexual abuse are male.

Anthony D. Perillo, Cynthia Calkins Mercado and Karen J. Terry, “Repeat Offending, Victim Gender, and Extent of Victim Relationship in Catholic Church Sexual Abusers: Implications for Risk Assessment”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, v. 35, no. 5 (May 2008): 600-614

It's based on this previous study: John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (2004). The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, 1950-2002. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

27> It's not just the Catholic Church that has this problem (unfortunately).

Yes, of course, but my point was that there is an 'extremely disproportionate' number of cases in the Catholic church, when compared to others. So far, no other religion even comes close. I would doubt that the total of all other issues of this kind, from other religions would even equal a fraction of the known cases in the Catholic church.

#17

A good point. However, every man in the country isn't selling morality the way most clergy do and religion in general does.

Maybe this reflects my own personal bias to how little I trust clergy morally.

31> Maybe this reflects my own personal bias to how little I trust clergy morally.

I can understand this. However, I try to separate the job from the man, and I do my best to not paint all men of a particular circumstance with the same brush.

Yes, of course, but my point was that there is an 'extremely disproportionate' number of cases in the Catholic church, when compared to others. So far, no other religion even comes close. I would doubt that the total of all other issues of this kind, from other religions would even equal a fraction of the known cases in the Catholic church.

Apart from theology and celibacy, I see two good institutional explanations for the disparity:

1. Not dealing with the situation is an incident escalator. If the hierarchy had ended a priests' career at the first serious complaint, you might have had as many pedophile priests, but most of the actual incidents wouldn't have happened.
2. Catholic churches don't "pick" their priests. In most Protestant denominations, the congregation, in whole or in part, "interviews" potential ministers. They get references from the last place he preached, character references, etc. You can be an Episcopal priest and unemployed—even unemployable. No doubt a few good rumors and anonymous letters can sink a Protestant minister's career.

The latter isn't going to change—it goes to a deep difference in practice, and even theology. The former could change.

"No, I'm not using culture as an excuse." Then..?

An explanation. One can say that the Southern culture of racism, and of honor and attitudes toward sex were responsible for the lynching of blacks. That doesn't excuse lynching.

From the Atheist Camel blog:

"If the Church really understood the depth of the problem; if it cared as much about the victims’ well being as they do about their own financial stability; if it were genuinely invested in rooting out and resolving the problem and ending it once and for all; they would have taken draconian steps to fix it years ago. "

I agree.

And I share theoria's assumption in 16 that the abuse is centuries old. My assumption is based on nothing except the apparent consistent effort to hide the problem and the thought that abuse begets abuse.

The church, the wider church, needs to take this seriously, and publicly seriously. Cooperating with law enforcement fully.

33> 2. Catholic churches don't "pick" their priests. In most Protestant denominations, the congregation, in whole or in part, "interviews" potential ministers. They get references from the last place he preached, character references, etc. You can be an Episcopal priest and unemployed—even unemployable. No doubt a few good rumors and anonymous letters can sink a Protestant minister's career.

You make a good point, and it reinforces my point that a church being ruled from the top down is part of the problem. Local control over their church leadership might well be far better for the 'flock.' I this circumstance it may very well have been a very important factor.

Benedict's pastoral letter to Ireland:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi...

Tim,

That letter does not do much for me.

What are your thoughts, as a Catholic, about the content of the letter?

I think a reform that would allow priests to marry may help the Church in terms of getting more priests to join the ranks. Being more open on things like priests' marriages means that issues such as paedophile priests will be less accepted and covered in red tape; what's more, imposing a psychological profiling test before being ordained would ensure that this risk is minimized. Let's not forget that 75% of paedophile abusers are close relatives - it does not mean that every Catholic priest is a paedophile.

I don't even know if a greater percentage of Catholic priests are pedophiles than the percentage of human beings who are. For me, that's not exactly the issue--the issue is the systematic covering up of these crimes by the church itself (well, the hierarchy of same). Pedophiles who aren't priests, when their crimes are found out, are much more likely to be turned in to authorities, prosecuted, and put in jail where they can't victimize more children. Transferring an offender and paying off the victim does nothing to prevent further victimization--in fact, it facilitates it.

I think the suggestion that this is, at heart, an organizational or institutional failure is dead on. I think arguments linking Catholic teachings on sex or priestly behavior to the prevalence of abuse are specious. The problem is that the Catholic church is an unusually good habitat for an abuser, as ejj1955 (#39) and Tim have pointed out (#33). Catholic priests are likely to have access to many potential innocents, are not subject to local review, and are protected by the central church organization from local scandal and government prosecution. I think it is highly likely that the Catholic church is attracting and subsequently protecting abusers, rather than creating them.

The real indictment of the Catholic church, and the real problem, is that final point. The church's historical and continued protection of abusers gives the distinct impression that it values the preservation of its power structure over the well-being of the abused. I think this needs to change immediately for the church to maintain any semblance of moral authority. I would suggest that the church immediately begin to collaborate in earnest with local secular authorities on the investigation and legal prosecution of suspect priests. It also couldn't hurt to institute a rigorous internal review board that compiles and investigates complaints, open to public review and again in collaboration with local legal authority. Any position of authority of this nature will attract abusers, so a system must be in place to identify them and eliminate their access to potential victims. The church has been trying to keep the legal authorities out of these investigations, but they need to start inviting them in if they hope to really eliminate abuse itself, and not just the scandal.

>40 jlelliott: I think it is highly likely that the Catholic church is attracting and subsequently protecting abusers, rather than creating them. The real indictment of the Catholic church, and the real problem, is that final point. Agreed.

And I agree with you fully on the need for change. I think what has been lost in much of the media coverage is that this change is already taking place in terms of current cases of abuse. Many Catholic bishops' conferences (effectively the governing or coordinating bodies of each national Catholic Church) have already instituted quite robust protocols, which are more victim-friendly and include cooperation with the police and other authorities. There is a real difference in the way recent cases have been handled. Cover up is no longer an option.

Much of what is still surfacing is old cases of abuse and old cover-ups, and of course those who covered up are now trying to minimise their involvement, cover their arses and save their careers. It will be a while before we get through this phase. While the hierarchy initially reacted slowly and grudgingly to the emerging scandal, the Church as a whole (ie the people, not just the bishops) has kept on pushing, and the changes may prove far-reaching.

>41 John5918: Without the least sarcasm meant, let me say, "Amen" to that.

I think the church's biggest problem in dealing with the scandal right now is the continued refusal to hold people accountable for the cover up of past abuse. New and better ways of dealing with abuse that occurs now is good, but when comes to past abuse, apologies are not enough. Until the people who established the policies to hide the problem rather than end it lose their authority and positions, it looks like more of the same. Unfortunately, it looks like the Pope was one of those people.

Papa Ratzi in Amerika

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

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

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

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.

But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hp

In my opinion, part of the problem is the environment created by the system. If the Church's hierarchy was better integrated *within* the society outside of the religious sphere, such problems could be dealt with in conjunction with both the Church and the legal system. If the Church is to survive, they have to revise their integration within society itself, or it won't survive these scandals. What's more, because of these scandals, people will go for other, more people-friendly, religious groups. In my opinion, the dialogue can only improve the relationship between people and the Church if the Church addresses the problems in line with the law. Because the scandals are generally known within the community and/or the victims, the betrayal of the confession is non-existent - it is only a question of time before the victims go public anyway, so retreating into a red-tape silence will make the hierarchy look like an accomplice.

>45 soniaandree:

Can you be more specific what the integration you envision would entail?

I suppose I would like to see the Church more involved in helping vulnerable people, in conjunction with social services or the police, for example. For example, I had once the case of a homeless person looking for shelter - the local priest has retired with no replacement or indication of one, therefore there was no more local contacts for help. All the local parish's board indicates are trips to Lourdes and youths clubs activities; there is no emergency number for someone to talk to or for help. Someone at the local hospital (that sometimes serves as emergency housing, if requested) lied to the homeless guy about the availability, so he was left to beg for shelter from door to door - it was deeply embarrassing for him to ask around. Also, if a priest was to know about someone in need of help, I would like to see a more 'streamlined' action about referrals to public services and the local parish offices. In the case of abused vulnerable people, I would like action being taken from within to help both the victim and the abuser, in taking a social and ethical stand - if the abuser is a priest, he should be held accountable, as much from the Church as from the laws of men. Because we are a society, and because the Church is keen to be part of everyday life with everyone, I do not see how the two laws would be incompatible.

>47 soniaandree: Sonia, I think this varies a lot from parish to parish. Back in the 1980s I worked in a parish in West London, in a deprived urban area, and we did all the things that you recommend, and more. I know of a number of other parishes that do the same. Of course I also know many that don't. I was once helping a homeless man and at some point I asked him where he came from. He named a neighbouring area where there was a very rich parish. Out of curiosity I asked why he didn't go to that parish before coming to us. "Oh, I did" he replied, "But they told me to come here because you deal with this type of thing!"

It's easy for me to be disgusted by sexual abuse of children. I've never performed such an act. That makes me some sort of good person, I suppose. But then I bethink me: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" And, man, have I got a fine collection of beams. Greed, gluttony, cowardice, envy, lust (entirely of the normal variety, I assure you). Yet, it's still so easy for me to think of the Father Murphy's of this world and count myself virtuous. Then I wonder, did Father Murphy think this way? He must have looked at other people and thought something like: "How selfish the average run-of-the-mill person must be, when compared to me, a man who has devoted his life to God's church and His suffering children! So what if I have a few peccadilloes? These pale into insignificance when I consider the greed, gluttony, cowardice, envy and lust (of the so-called normal variety) of the average person." Then I marvel again why God bothers with any of us.

#49

Good Lenten thoughts.

I don't really agree. The issue of sexual abuse by priests isn't really about sin.

Sin can be forgiven(1). But this is fundamentally about institutional responsibility. A priest who's abused children hasn't just committed a sin, he's also betrayed the institution—indeed leveraged it to provide him with easier targets. The institution must never allow itself to be so used again.

The situation is like that of a pharmacist convicted of poisoning his customers. Such a man may serve his time in jail and be a free man. He may even be forgiven by his victims. But nobody in his right mind would let him fill prescriptions again!

---

1. For what it's worth, though, even the most generous Christian should not scruple to doubt the repentance of a priest who's lived for years preying on hundreds of children. Repentance for such a sin cannot be an easy process, but a lifelong unwinding of damage—and that's leaving aside purely psychological aspects, which can probably never be "cured." In the early church all sorts of sins far less than that were dealt with by withholding sacraments until the hour of death. For a pedophile priest to not only have access to the eucharist but administer it is truly blasphemous.

An Episcopalian in the USA has just sent me this link from Psychology Today, Six important points you don't hear about regarding clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church

>52 John5918: Some of these points have been mentioned above; thanks for posting this. As usual, hype and hysteria have helped obscure reality--which also makes it harder to deal with. One example from the article is that the focus on priests as pedophiles obscures that most of the victims were teens, not prepubescents, which may cause those trying to help to ignore the most likely victims.

One example from the article is that the focus on priests as pedophiles obscures that most of the victims were teens, not prepubescents, which may cause those trying to help to ignore the most likely victims.

A statistical study of cleric sex abusers and their victims in the USA doesn't fully support this claim. This study is referenced in the link in post #52, but this particular finding isn't mentioned.

"Records from 4,392 Catholic priests with documented records of sexual abuse against children compose the sample used. The average age of priests at the time of the first documented case was 38.9 years (SD = 11.2). The mean number of victims per priest was 2.7 (SD = 5.1), although that figure rises to 3.4 (SD = 8.4) if other potential victims for which there were no formally documented complaints are included…Clerics who abused multiple victims compose 44.4% (n = 1,916) of the sample for which relevant data were available, with as many as 159 victims reported for a single cleric. If other potential victims for which there were no formally documented complaints are included, these figures rise to include 50.0% (n = 2,160) of the sample for which relevant data are available, with as many as 307 victims reported for a single cleric. The average age of documented victims was 12.8 (SD = 2.8) years, and 70.6% of the eligible sample (n = 2,963) had only male victims".

http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/5/600

> 51. Thank you for a first. At least for me. I've never seen a footnote to a thread post before.

Oh, I love em!

As often happens on LT there are parallel discussions about the same topic on different threads, and this link to a 2004 report by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled "A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States" appears in another thread.

>54 theoria: theoria, this report refers to the John Jay College report, which was commissioned by the USCCB, but appears to interpret those statistics slightly differently (cf III C 3).

Edited to add the quote: Approximately seventy-eight percent of the reported sexual abuse victims were between the ages of eleven to seventeen when the abuse began

Age doesn't matter when it comes to abuse/rape by someone with authority.

>58 soniaandree: I think you'll find everybody agrees with you on that, Sonia, including the report. I think the point that is being made is that a clearer distinction between paedophilia and other forms of abuse makes it easier to institute appropriate solutions and preventive measures.

51
The damage to the institution, though it is the least of my concerns in this matter, was not done by the abusing priests but by the institution itself to itself, when it ignored, excused, and covered the acts.

The abuse itself certainly seems widespread and longstanding. Perhaps it only seems so because of the public stance and claim to moral authority that in inherent in church teaching.

If the claims of abuse are largely decades old, then are we to assume that child sexual abuse is no longer the problem that it once was?

>60 richardbsmith: If the claims of abuse are largely decades old, then are we to assume that child sexual abuse is no longer the problem that it once was?

Richard, we probably can't be sure as it is possible that it is still being under-reported, and one wouldn't want to be complacent, but it probably isn't happening on a large scale these days.

Within the last 10 years or so many national Catholic bishops' conferences have put robust protocols in place for reporting and dealing with the issue. The institutional culture has moved towards reporting rather than covering up, with formal procedures for doing so. Civil authorities are informed. People working with children generally, not just in the church, have less opportunity to be alone with a child. Victims and their families are less likely to be cowed by the institutional church, nor by authority figures in general. Investigative journalists have got the scent. Victim support groups are active.

While both the abuse and the cover up were appalling crimes, and while some of those who did the covering up are still trying to avoid responsibility, one can hope that the institutional church is now moving into a new era where this could not be repeated, largely driven by an outraged laity.

I think it's pretty clear the direct issue is being dealt with, both from the church side and from the side of the laity. But the more troubling, secondary issue—the institutional failure—has not been as comprehensively addressed.

Ideally, the answer will come with the next pope. Benedict is many things—it's great to see a real intellectual in the position and a minimalist, consolidating pope was a good year after the epic papacy of John Paul II—but he's not a great pastor or administrator and, as is now clear, he's not without connection to these problems. Benedict's legacy will probably be in efforts like bringing the Latin-Mass schismatics back to orthodoxy. Though it lacks the intellectual appeal of that fight, I suspect that solving—or not solving—the sex abuse issue will prove to be far more consequential to the health of the church.

>62 timspalding: both from the church side and from the side of the laity

I know what you mean, Tim, but the Church is (or should be) the laity as much as it is the hierarchy. Perhaps we need a pope who recognises that, something which has been pretty much lacking since Vatican II. John Paul II will go down in history for many things, but one of them will be an attempt to strengthen the centralised authoritarian model of Church. I'm not convinced that Benedict XVI, who was his right hand man, will seek to change that dynamic. I agree with you that the sex abuse issue may prove more of a catalyst for positive change than anything else.

Not to be disagreeable, but I fear the sex-abuse issue is a down elevator no matter how you look at it, and no matter how it turns out. There's something ghoulish about hoping it has some specific effect on the church, like cheering up Titanic victims by talking up the effect it will have on lifeboat safety in future cruise ships. ;)

>64 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. I see what you mean and I certainly didn't mean to seem ghoulish. But good things do come out of bad things, just as in the Christian paradigm resurrection follows death. While nobody would want bad things to happen in order to bring about something good, I think we have to accept and work with whatever positive changes do take place as a result of something evil.

While I recognize that this thread started with the reminder that this isn't a uniquely Catholic problem, wouldn't it be fair to say that this problem is especially acute in any sect or denomination in which certain individuals are accorded special rights & privileges because, according the belief systems of these organizations, communion with God requires the intercession of something like a papacy and the religious structure of a Church? For example, in the early Mormon Church, plural marriage was a right given to the revelator Joseph Smith and, by extension, to specially sanctioned holders of the priesthood. More recently, wasn't someone like David Koresh able to sexually exploit members of his Branch Davidian flock, including children and with the complicity of their parents. And of course, back on the Mormons, I think there was just recently a conviction for child sexual abuse of the fundamentalist LDS at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado Texas. And just last year I think I recall prosecutions of ultra-orthodox Hasidic rabbis who were sexually abusing young boys, with a report on NPR to the effect that sexual abuse is an "open secret" in some Hasidic communities.

What I guess I'm getting at is that what looks like "covering up" on the part of these groups is simply a protective measure on the part of a sub-culture that feels itself compelled to respond to disapproval of the "unenlightened" world at large. So what appears to be institutional "failure" is, in reality, simply a regrettable glimpse behind the curtain at doings that are part and parcel of the basic package.

Very interesting article in the Guardian today arguing that the Catholic Church is not the monolith which many outsiders believe it to be.

The pontiff is not so potent The shape of the world's oldest living bureaucracy, the Catholic church, is very much misunderstood

>67 John5918: The slight decentralization of the Catholic church gives no excuse for cover-ups. Someone has to take responsibility, and this article tries to hard to let the bishops off the hook.

I am good friends, and a relative, too, of many Roman Catholics, and I feel sorry for them. For the most part, they are uncommonly decent folk. Meeting with them, it's hard to ignore the elephant in the room. I don't know if, or how, to broach the subject.

I wish they'd leave the Church!

this article tries to hard to let the bishops off the hook

I don't think you read the same article.

"Under John Paul II, any expression of doubt in this ludicrous ban would bar a priest from promotion. The result, especially in the Irish church, was the promotion of a generation of men who would put loyalty to an institution ahead of loyalty to the laity."

A few thoughts from an evangelical Protestant...

Churches should be a safe haven for all people. Given the transient nature of modern life, we usually don't know the history of many of the people to whom we entrust our children. I have my 3 year old daughter in Sunday school classes and nurseries staffed by people I have only known for 3 years. I sincerely believe that I can trust them, but I haven't run background checks.

Sexual sin is common throughout the world, with the church being no exception. The church, being a safe haven, can also be a safe haven for predators. Children (and even some adults) are going to be hesitant to speak out against an adult in authority, especially a pastor.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has some added complexities:
1) Priests are held in extremely high esteem, higher than most Protestant pastors.
2) The celebacy requirement for priesthood functionally exclude many who would otherwise find an appropriate outlet for sexual desires in marriage.
3) The celebacy requirement has created a haven for those who do not desire to have a heterosexual marriage and in many cases are homosexual. I have heard well-informed comments that almost 50% of US RCC seminarians are homosexual. Homosexuality does not inherently mean child abuse. However, without any other outlet for sexuality and interaction with young children, there is a tempting and ripe opportunity to abuse children.
4) The RCC has one of (if not the) most formal heirarchies of any denomination. Most evangelical Protestant churches have little or no oversight beyond that congregation. Mainline Protestant churches have more structure, but still more power tends to reside in the local congregation. It is my understanding that almost all aspects of the church come from the top (ultimately the Pope) down. There is a wide-spread, systemic (but not necessarily universal) pattern of RCC taking no or insufficient action to discipline violators and prevent future abuse. The RCC hierarchy (Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, etc.) has the power, authority, and responsibility to act like no other Christian denomination could begin to approach. While there could be a temporary crisis in staffing church positions, the RCC would ultimately be healthier and better equipped to care for its congregations and the world.

I wish they'd leave the Church!

They can't leave without foregoing grace and without leaving their vocation unfulfilled.

2030 It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of "the law of Christ."72 From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P73.HTM

I don't think the church is full of people who want to "leave the church" but are terrified they will be leaving divine grace. I just don't think the psychology works that way for many people. People who leave the church tend to think they won't be losing divine grace, or that there is no divine grace to begin with.

I'm intrigued why msladylib wants them to leave the church. I imagine that some relatives of mine were part of some other large, longstanding faith tradition—Lutherans, say, or a large branch of Judaism. Then I imagine that tradition had serious institutional problems. Why would I want them to leave it? What's my dog in this fight that I would go so far as to want others to leave a church for it? What's my motivation?

Now, I can understand wanting relatives to leave some denomination that believed terrible things—some strains of most religions—or which was directly hurting or brainwashing them—Scientology perhaps. But so long as this is about Catholicism and I'd be okay if they were, say, Episcopal or Greek Orthodox, what gives? What's the motivation here?

I would add that many non-Catholics regard Catholicism as a denomination, when it's more properly a two-millenium-long civilization. Much is made of "cafeteria catholics," but the simple fact is that the Catholic church includes an extraordinary variety of opinion. Hans Kung, for example, may have been forbidden to teach Catholic theology after directly challenging papal infallibility—not to mention advocating for female priests, etc.—but he just switched to a general theological position, is a priest in good standing and has friendly dinners with the pope! Even Schillebeeckx who was, in my opinion, on the moon, was never convicted of heresy, and died a Catholic and a priest. At the other end, the church went to absurd lengths to bring the most reactionary schismatic conservatives back into the fold, including that vile Holocaust denier.

The same goes through all of Church history which, because of the nature of Catholic theology, is always "present" in some sense and available as a model. Consider, for example, that Erasmus had no small part in encouraging Luther and wrote biting, wildly popular attacks on the church of his day, including direct attacks on the Pope—and died a Catholic.

>68 msladylib: The slight decentralization of the Catholic church gives no excuse for cover-ups. Someone has to take responsibility, and this article tries to hard to let the bishops off the hook

Nobody (except a few bishops with guilty consciences) is trying to excuse cover ups. But as Doug pointed out in a parallel thread, any attempt to try to explain and understand what is going on seems to be met with a knee-jerk reaction that one is trying to excuse or condone what everyone agrees is a horrific crime.

The Catholic Church is not going to go away. And nor should it, because in many parts of the world (especially the southern hemisphere where most Catholics actually live but which has little access to the international media and is not really taken seriously by north America and Europe) it is seen as a huge force for good in the struggle against injustice, poverty, illiteracy, bad government, avoidable diseases, global political-economic-military interests, and all the other ills which define daily life for the majority of Catholics (and people) in the world.

So, given that the Church will continue to exist whether one likes it or not, what do we want from it? A few guilty individuals forced to resign amidst some superficial changes? Or a genuine reform in which authority is decentralised and the laity play a greater role? I vote for (and have been working for) the latter, but it won't come about unless we understand the workings of the Church. It won't happen quickly either, because huge 2,000 year old global institutions don't change quickly. Actually many of us hoped it would happen quickly after Vatican II, but Pope John Paul II set that project back a few decades. However the seeds of change have been planted, as the article says, and will bear fruit.

Ironically clerical sex abuse is one issue where the Church has demonstrated that it can change quickly. In the last 10 years the Church has put in place measures which make it unlikely that either sex abuse or cover ups could happen again on a large scale. That in no way exonerates those who were guilty of abuses and covering up in the past, nor does it excuse those with guilty consciences who are now trying to cover up their own role in the cover ups, nor does it excuse the institutional failings of the past. But at least it is a sign of the institution trying to correct those failings.

>72 timspalding: I want to second Tim. Most Catholics are not terrified of losing grace or eternal reward or whatever. theoria (>71 theoria:), I would suggest that most Catholics have never read the Catechism. The Catholic Church is a civilisation, a culture, an identity, more than simply a denomination. In practice it is a very broad Church indeed, as Tim demonstrates, far broader than both non-Catholics and "conservative Catholics" believe. Why would I want to leave it just because it has problems and isn't perfect, any more than I would want to leave my family, my nation, my tribe because they have problems?

A view from Australia: A church adrift

A few quotes that struck me:

Former Sydney bishop Geoffrey Robinson says: "The church itself is not going to fold up its tent and disappear, but there could be very dramatic changes, and in the Western world it could become a much smaller church"....

What does it mean for the people in the pews? In much of the West, not too much because there is already a very strong disconnect between the faithful and the hierarchy.

According to a leading Melbourne priest, Eric Hodgens (now retired), there are now two Catholic churches, the hierarchical church and local parishes. ''It's amazing how resilient the people in the pews are,'' he says. ''The ones who come to Mass regularly are aware of all this, but what they like is religious life at the local parish level. They'll say 'these are a pack of sods', but the local priest is usually OK, and they don't ever meet the hierarchy.

''The priests are on the side of the people, not the bishops. The cynicism of the priests has been exacerbated by the appointments for 30 years of pro-Vatican people. There's no love lost between the rank and file and the bishops''....

Meanwhile, lay Catholics are less inclined to accept church authority, and are demanding a bigger role, which, given the crisis in the number of priests, they are likely to get....

Bishop Pat Power: ''Priests need to listen to parishioners, bishops to priests and the Vatican to bishops and churches... Too often we let Rome hear what they want to hear rather than what they need to know.

''There's still a lot of really good things happening on the ground. I can't stress enough the importance of being in communion with the church. I'd never advise people to walk away....''

I'm not convinced that holds true for the the "average" Catholic churchgoer in the US. Are you?

>76 timspalding: I haven't lived in the USA since 1994 so I can't comment on that. When I was there I interacted with parishes, religious communities and university faculties where it was definitely true, but whether that is "average" I don't know. But I would think it's recognisable in the UK and many parts of Europe, as well as Australia where this piece was written. In Africa it's a different dynamic as priests are few and far between, "outstations" of parishes where most of the people actually live and worship are run by the laity, clerical sex abuse doesn't appear to be such a big problem here (I hope that doesn't sound complacent), and African concerns are often very different from western ones.

But generally, whether in Africa, north America or Europe, do you think the "average" Catholic actually knows and follows Church teaching? I'm not so sure...

Is the church the hierarchy or the family of the faithful?

>78 richardbsmith: Richard, I believe it is the family of the faithful, but obviously there are a lot of people (especially in the hierarchy!) who would disagree. In practice it's probably a mixture, with the two different models competing in some sense. In this and similar threads people often say "the Church" when what they mean is "the hierarchy".

From BBC - Police team to probe priest abuse of children in Northern Ireland.

A senior Vatican priest, speaking before Pope Benedict XVI at a Good Friday service, compared the world’s outrage at sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church to the persecution of the Jews, prompting angry responses from victims’ advocates and consternation from Jewish groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/world/europe/03church.html?hp

Besides the obvious absurdity, the day on which this claim is made is curious, and brings about an odd transference: the effects of the origin of clerical anti-semitism are displaced onto Vatican critics.

>81 theoria: Whew! What gall to compare criticism of the Catholic hierarchy to CENTURIES of anti-semitism. Is this man Cantalamessa in his right mind? How, indeed, does this matter come up in a sermon on Good Friday?

Stunning.

Pretty gross. The reductio ad Hitlerum is gross, but, for what it's worth, people run that direction when they're all stirred up, defensive, and can't see things in proportion.

Apart from the defensive fortress mentality (which has been a recurring theme in the history of the Church), I think it also demonstrates how out of touch some of the people at the top of the hierarchy are with the world at large and the mood of lay Catholics.

Another Hitler comparison was made a week or two ago by Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo of the International Criminal Court, who said publicly that elections in Sudan under President Omar Hassan al Bashir would be like elections under Hitler. I believe there was some reaction on Jewish websites, but outside of Sudan circles it didn't get the publicity that the Vatican is getting.

85> From a personal perspective, I wonder if it is not being out of touch with the world at large that is their situation, as much as doing everything they can to maintain the status quo of their power. When there is such an imbalance in any organization, a closer scrutiny will usually bring to light further 'transgressions,' and will likely bring down more heat upon the heads of the leaders. We should not forget the financial scandals attached to this august body, as well as the current issue. Perhaps there is more to come?

The BBC weighs in with Does Catholic celibacy contribute to child sex abuse?

On the one hand: If you are already struggling with a conflicted sexuality, including paedophile tendencies, then it is attractive to become part of an institution that obliges you to be celibate; the celibate lifestyle can attract people who have an abnormal sexuality and cannot integrate sexuality into their lives.

On the other: The father of a family is 36 times more likely to abuse than a celibate priest. So it is not good to discuss celibacy in this context

The celibacy rule is a part of the current crisis of the Church. It's definitely not the only one but it plays a role in it

I think the problem is mostly institutional. If we had married priests, you'd have affairs and spousal abuse and—yes—abuse of priests' children. And if you changed nothing else about the church, the hierarchy would be covering that up as fiercely as ever.

It's interesting to see spin masters at work. Here's an opinion piece that seems to claim that, on the issue of sexual abuse of children, the Catholic Church in general, and the current pope in particular, deserve great credit for their exemplary moral leadership!

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/weigel-pope-benedict-xvi-is-an-agent-of-530734....

I have seen priest drink beer, is molestation far behind.

....

In other words salvation eliminates all the sinful acts.

Obviously, I as a non-Christian don't agree with that, and I think the evidence for the total lack of "salvation" and elimination is as plain as broad daylight, but I do agree that the problem is "in the heart of man," or more accuratley, in human brains. Pedophilia and sexual predation are human problems. They require evidence-based treatment, and they require that non-afflicted adults act responsibly and vigilantly so as to protect children. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Catholic hierarchy failed to do.

Here is yet another article, about predation and rape of Native children in Alaska, as known sexual predators were deliberately transferred to remote locations there. The article is lengthy and deeply disturbing, but worth a read. A noteworthy quote and good suggestion from the article:

In 1993, Canice Connors, the director of St. Luke's, a psychiatric institute for troubled clergy, told the Los Angeles Times: "The Catholic Church in North America possesses the greatest data bank of evaluation and treatment of nonincarcerated pedophiles on the continent. That data should be analyzed scientifically and shared with others studying the problem."

Sorry, drinking beer and molesting children aren't even in the same ballpark, priest or no.

I had no idea that drinking alcohol, in and of itself, is immoral behavior.

As far as I know, a priest may confess to any other priest. The confessional is only as good as the remorse of the one confessing, whether in a confessional or during prayer or to a companion. So, yes, the confessional can work.

A smoking document and Ratzinger

"The priest, convicted of tying up and abusing two young boys in a California church rectory, wanted to leave the ministry.

But in 1985, four years after the priest and his bishop first asked that he be defrocked, the future Pope Benedict XVI, then a top Vatican official, signed a letter saying that the case needed more time and that “the good of the Universal Church” had to be considered in the final decision, according to church documents released because of lawsuits against the church."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?hp

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle

Blech. But actually I don't think this one is as bad as the German one.

The Vatican was informed (letters 3, 5) that diocese had "irrevocably" removed the priest from active ministry. The Vatican no doubt took the diocese at their word that he was not and could not be ministering to anyone, let alone children. With that step assumed, "laicization" was something of a technicality, of religious significance but not affecting whether the priest would be ministering to children or anyone else. The diocese had said he wasn't and would never again. And nobody would ever rely on laicization—always a long, tricky process—to stop immanent danger to children.

The problem here, as I see it, is not a failure to stop him from abusing children. Laicization should not have done anything the diocese had already said it had done. The problem is just the more ordinary—but still very ugly—idea of "scandal" and the lengths that should be taken to avoid it.

A large part of the problem was the Church's desire to handle cases internally. If the police had been informed then whether or not the priest was defrocked would have been pretty irrelevant as he would almost certainly have been facing a prison term.

A problem for any "internal" solution is that the Church cannot guarantee that a priest will remain out of circulation, as it has no physical means of restraint. I was peripherally involved in a case a few years ago where the priest was indeed removed from active ministry and was sent to a religious house far away to be kept away from the general public. However he simply walked out and returned to the original area, albeit not to his parish nor ministry. That case had been reported to the police, as per new policy, but for some reason they hadn't arrested him yet (or maybe he was out on bail - can't remember the exact details now). He was thus no greater danger than any other suspect out on bail, and the police continued to take an interest in him.

If the police had been informed then whether or not the priest was defrocked would have been pretty irrelevant as he would almost certainly have been facing a prison term.

No, in this case the police was informed. It's how the whole process started. He was arrested for tying up boys, pleaded no contest and served probation. See this timeline of the whole thing, by a local TV station: http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=12286671

I agree that's a big problem in their handling of other cases, but this wasn't like that. The priest was a known and convicted sex abuser. He was allegedly removed from ministry. The Vatican wasn't covering anything up per se. They were just slow to release him from his vows.

-- They were just slow to release him from his vows.

That's the part I don't understand. He wanted out. The diocese wanted him out. You've got to figure the parishoners wanted him out. The future pope wanted him in, for “the good of the Universal Church”.

What "good" could that possibly be? I've heard that JP II wanted to make it harder for disaffected priests to relinquish their vows and return to the laity, and that Cardinal Ratzinger was just following his boss's policy. Is that the "good" -- to maintain the size of the workforce?

It does seem strange that he wasn't allowed to leave when it seems that everyone (except Ratzinger) wanted him to.

Many of the priests I know who have moved on from the priesthood (not for child abuse, I hasten to add) have refused to go through the laicisation ("defrocking") process, as they see it as irrelevant and demeaning. They have made their decision clear by resigning, and see no need to do anything further. Interestingly I know of cases where their religious superiors have tried to pressurise them into seeking laicisation, as that seems like a neater solution for the hierarchy - apparently the exact opposite of the case in question here.

The two extremely popular priests at a church I once joined left the priesthood, without going through the laicisation process, at about the same time (there must have been some interesting conversations in that rectory late at night). They each wanted to marry and one of them did soon after (before he left, he told the assembled congregation that he had not broken his vows).

For attending the marriage, three church employees were fired. The replacement priests who had carried out the firings, on orders from the archbishop, requested a transfer immediately after.

The next priest was a wonderful guy; I'm not sure why he disappeared so soon. The one after him . . . well, there was a new sheriff in town, probably just the kind of enforcer the hierarchy wanted at that point. I disliked him immensely and disengaged from that church soon after.

It makes one wonder what the church holds as its priority.

It seems to me that the church holds itself as its priority.

And I do not intend that to be directed uniquely to the Catholic Church.

In the discussions of the sexual abuse, what I see little of is comment on the healing of those who were abused.

I also see little in the way of acknowledgement as to how pervasive the problem seems - US, Ireland, Germany. Elsewhere? Perhaps I am uninformed about how much the church has acknowledged.

What is the effort to discover other instances? Does the church wait to see what else is found and then react defensively or is the church seeking out abuse to provide healing?

Vatican tells bishops to report abuse cases to police

This article also refers to CDF GUIDELINES ON SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed has already been Church policy in many countries in recent years.

I just watched a Christopher Hitchens interview on MSNBC. (He's always so smug.)

He's advocating the Pope be arrested when he visits the UK.

Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict for crimes being committed, there's another set of topics for discussion:

- Is the Pope a head of state?

- Is the Pope, or anyone for that matter, "above the law?"

>103 KenoticRunner: - two articles on that in today's Guardian:

The pope should stand trial

Why is anyone surprised when Christopher Hitchens and I {Richard Dawkins} call for the prosecution of the pope? There is a clear case to answer

Why the pope can't be tried

The international criminal court can only try crimes resulting from state-sponsored policies of atrocity

- Is the Pope a head of state?

OFFICIAL NAME:
Holy See

Note: The Holy See is the universal government of the Catholic Church and operates from the Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory of 0.44 square kilometers (0.17 square miles). The Pope is the ruler of both the Vatican City State and the Holy See. The Holy See, as the supreme body of government of the Catholic Church, is a sovereign juridical entity under international law. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm

The international criminal court can only try crimes resulting from state-sponsored policies of atrocity

Why would an international criminal court have to be the venue for a trial? I assume most nations would have some sort of criminal charge for those who harbor others who have commit criminal acts. To be sure, it might be highly unusual for a head of state to be arrested and brought to trial in the courts of another state, but not impossible: see the case of Panama's Manuel Noriega, who currently resides in a federal facility in Florida. The head of state situation could be finessed with the argument that Ratzinger would be charged with criminal acts that took place before he became Pope, not for criminal acts committed once he became Benedict.

Perhaps more significantly for many, is systematically covering up pedophilia a mortal sin?

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions at the same time:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offence (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context.
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Here's another news article on only God being able to fire the Pope: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/pope-benedict-fired-growing-sex-abuse-cover-ups/st...

What were the Cardinals praying when Ratzinger was elected?

What are they praying now?

Concerning the Church, every day, I pass through the following...

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift; Send down upon our Bishops, and other Clergy, and upon the Congregations committed to their charge, the healthful Spirit of thy grace; and, that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the continual dew of thy blessing. Grant this, O Lord, for the honour of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen.

And...

...More especially we pray for thy holy Church universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life...

I'm really not sure what these words mean in the context of all this nor what this scandal means in the context of words such as these.

Where are the spiritual disciplines and doing the right thing, because it is the right thing?

Where's the fear of God?

When this Pope prays with Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs to the Father of an infinite Majesty, what exactly are his peeps thinking along side him...

As opposed to organized religion as I am, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that any country would be foolish enough to arrest the Pope. They can pound their hooves into the dirt and whiney as much as they want, but it is not even a remote possibility. Not even in Puritanical Britain. The worldwide backlash would be of a nuclear magnitude. It would certainly be entertaining, though.

> 106 is systematically covering up pedophilia a mortal sin?

I'm not a Catholic, so I don't really know what I'm talking about as regards that church's dogma. But, it seems to me that:
a. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ, as a member of the trinity, is God.
b. When God says something, it trumps everybody else. I'm assuming that Catholics believe that.
c. Jesus didn't spend a lot of time deliberately pronouncing judgment on individuals or even categories of individuals (excepting pharisees, scribes and lawyers). But he did say, Matt. 18:4-6, "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Sounds pretty clear.

I wonder if the hierarchy was truly in the know? Remember when the sex abuse scandal was playing out in the US, John Paul II seemed to think that it was a uniquely American phenomenon. (Wish I could find the quote.*) Granted there seems to be geographical differences in the complexion and intensity of the problem, but surely he wouldn't have blamed American culture if he knew what was transpiring in Ireland and Germany?

ETA: Per capita, assuming broad confidence limits, the US Church's experience with scandal is not significantly unique? If bishops have control over seminaries and priestly discipline, I assume they are not all volunteering reports to the "head office" on problems? So, Ratzinger's 1990s call for such info to be submitted on a confidential basis might have been the first time the Vatican began to get a full picture of the problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

*ETA: For example, in 2002 Boston Globe article on US church's sex scandal, "A lot of people in Rome think of the Catholic Church in the United States of America as big and vigorous and rich, but morally flaccid and not very sophisticated, and a tad of anti-Americanism shows up in the Vatican," said Lawrence S. Cunningham, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. "You get the impression that they think there's too much openness and too much self-revelation and too independent and feisty a press, and that a lot of this gets magnified by anti-Catholicism. There still may be in Europe a tendency to hush these issues up."
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6741

This is no excuse, of course, for church failure to protect the young, but sounds like there might be some truth to perception that the media is in a feeding frenzy:

Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?
NRO: Why Haven't Teachers Received Same Scrutiny As Catholic Priests?

…As the National Catholic Register’s reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.”

“Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools…”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml

margd
Part of the reason for the coverage is the church's position as a moral authority and a holy institution. The disparity between the claim of holiness and the fact of widespread abuse and seemingly institutional cover up combined with the prominence of the Catholic Church and the Vatican makes this story the bigger news.

It is the hypocrisy that is the story. The bigger the hypocrisy, the bigger the story.

Abuse everywhere is a problem. And it everywhere may have been as much long standing and as much ignored or covered up as the abuse within the church.

In my local area we have at least two current stories involving schools. A male teacher and a teenaged girl. A female teacher and a series of boys. Both teachers are very attractive. The male teacher is married.

I should follow them more closely, but I do not keep up with the developments about the prosecutions.

There seems to be frequently local stories about school abuse. We had another story about a local male church choir director with a series of boys.

The abuse is still with each child, in each instance.

The stories are about the offenders. The concerns should be about the children.

How far back does the chain of abused to abuser go? Is there such a linkage that an abused child is likely to become an abusing adult?

Can current scrutiny break this chain?

It's not unusual for institutions or public figures who are under intense criticism to blame the media for their woes (for either exaggerating a problem or for having a 'hidden agenda'). This must be a strategy taught in Public Relations 101, because it is almost ubiquitous across the range of public scandals. Another way to overtly or covertly diminish criticism is to point to other scandalous situations that were not covered (again, to substantiate either media bias or a hidden agenda). All of this is par for the course, and to criticize such strategies is fruitless. It happens. However, one would hope that institutions and public figures would act autonomously of their PR representatives and take responsibility for consequences of their actions. And, of course, all the spinning in the world cannot erase the thousands of abuse victims who have come forward, unless one would claim that these victims are simply the product of the same media conspiracy.

Why the Vatican media strategy is failing

the absence of a coherent media strategy is evident, as a variety of Vatican personalities take it upon themselves to respond publicly to the accusations.

And the New York Times weighs in on Hitchens:

Correcting Christopher Hitchens

So, to sum up, Hitchens’ gravest charge against the pope — and the basis, I assume, for his preposterous plan to arrest the pontiff during Benedict’s upcoming trip to Britain — is a tissue of misrepresentations from beginning to end. Which is not surprising in the least.

A Jesuit view:

It's Not About Celibacy: Blaming the Wrong Thing for the Sexual Abuse Crisis

Pope Benedict says Catholics must 'do penance'

"I must say, we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word 'repent', which seemed too tough," he said.

"But now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognise what is wrong in our lives."

That's rich. "Catholics" must do penance for the actions of priests and their enabler Bishops and Cardinals. This is a weird variation of collective guilt.

>117 theoria:

I don't think you're reading the quote right. It is:

"I must say, we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word 'repent', which seemed too tough. But now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognise what is wrong in our lives."

I don't think he is excluding himself and the institutional church at all. I'm seriously not sure what you see in that quote that is objectionable. "We must repent of our sins" is hard to spin, isn't it?

the absence of a coherent media strategy is evident, as a variety of Vatican personalities take it upon themselves to respond publicly to the accusations

Look, I think they're handling it poorly. They're saying dumb things. I'm very happy, however, that they're saying things as normal people under stress, rather than hiring some public relations firm to "manage" the response. I can deal with a stupid or sinful church that is fundamentally human and—I think—holy. I'm not sure I could deal with a vapid one.

>117 theoria: I tend to see repentance in terms of transformation, change, conversion (in the sense of metanoia), rather than guilt (and here again I'm desperately trying to remember theology lessons from decades ago). It's not about collective guilt over the past, more about all of us together as Church moving towards a healthier future. Repentance is part of that dynamic.

>118 timspalding: They're saying dumb things.

It goes with the territory. I've facilitated bishops' meetings where we've gone through an agreed agenda, made decisions, produced a communique, double-checked to make sure that they all really agree with and own the communique, then held a press conference where the bishops have a copy of the communique in front of them, and then they go ahead and talk about anything and everything except what is in the communique. Fundamentally human and holy, definitely. Frustrating sometimes? Yes!

What action is in repent?

Does making it a group thing ease the sense of personal responsibility that seems to lie in the direction of the Pope and other specific individuals?

Good discussion on penance vs. repenting vs. guilt vs. media strategy.

As Christians, what must we do for God to forgive us has been a historic debate. However, this scandal here also may illustrate, rather than a religious debate, a spiritual contemplation about... What do we have opportunity to do to make it easy for our fellow person to forgive us? And... Like the Father, what can we each do to forgive those not deserving?

From all perspectives, this issue seems to illustrate the folly of trying save our selves--face, reputation, ego, institution. Hopefully some find grace of the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit in this soiled mess.

>122 KenoticRunner:, "Now, under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins, we can see that being able to do penance is a grace and we see how necessary it is to do penance and thus recognize what is wrong in our lives."
-Pope Benedict.

Acts of Contrition: Why Real Penance in the Church Is "Necessary"
Rev. James Martin, S.J.
Catholic priest and author of The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/catholic-church-penance_b_5422...

>125 oakes: Oakes, I'm just wondering what you disagree with in the cited article by James Martin? It looks pretty straightforward and seems to be building on the pope's call for repentance, with a few quite specific references to the catechism and Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).

Oakes,

Do you mean for the penance of the Church to be in quotations in the same way you intend the Christians and Catholics in quotations? In someway not real Christians, not real Catholics, not real penance?

Why is someone disgusted and angered by the apparent widespread abuse of children and the apparent widespread cover up of that abuse, considered to be an enemy of the Church and deserving of Hell?

My understanding of Jesus' teachings is that he is opposed to child molestation.

I'm out.

Isn't stalking a violation of the TOS?

>129 clamairy: - clamairy, I'm afraid that one has gone over my head. What do you mean about stalking?

#130 - I left you a private comment, but I wasn't referring to you.

I'm out.

Shit, Spalding. Looks like the homosexualist agenda ain't so covert anymore. Does your wife know about this?

The Pontiff and the Press (NYT)

How the Boston Globe exposed the abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic church (Guardian) - a rehash of old stories.

The church in America did go some way to responding to the developing crisis..., drawing up in mid-2002 a charter for the protection of children and young people, demanding "a commitment to transparency and openness"...

"The Catholic church is an enormous institution... Certainly some bishops, and many members, understand the enormity of what has happened. But there are still plenty who believe this is all an anti-Catholic conspiracy, that the church is being persecuted. The damage is real, but the church is not of one mind as to whether it is best to apologise and reform, or resist and fight. That argument has not yet been decided."

Pope promised victims he would punish abusive priests (Guardian) - the church would do everything in its power to bring justice to abusive priests and implement "effective measures" to protect children.

Pope says church will take action on sex abuse scandal (CNN)

The statement by a victims' spokeswoman "However, the pope's professions of 'sorrow' don't keep one child-molesting cleric away from kids, expose one corrupt bishop or make one child more secure... That is where the pope's focus should be" again misses the point that the Church is putting in place measures to keep child-molesting clerics away from children and to make children more secure, and that corrupt bishops are being exposed whether they like it or not. The fact that some parts of the Church are dragging their feet on full exposure about the past should not mask the real changes which are taking place for the present and future.

Controversial cardinal replaced for Washington Mass (BBC)

The decision to cancel the cardinal's participation came after a number of local priests said they would not attend the service - a sign of the growing influence of the local Church.

Edited to add second, third, fourth and fifth articles

"One of your (Philip Jenkins’) earlier books is Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis. What are your thoughts on the current crisis surrounding the pope?"

"I wrote that book back in 1996, and it's been disturbing to see how the crisis has moved on since then. Much of the media response is based on questionable assumptions. However hard this may be to believe, there is in fact no evidence that Catholic (or celibate) clergy abuse children at a rate any different from other professions dealing with children: we really have no comparable figures to go on. (The limited studies we do have of public school teachers suggest a startlingly high volume of abuse.) Perhaps priests are better than Protestant pastors or public school teachers in this regard, perhaps worse: we just can't say. What makes the Catholic dioceses different is that they are pack rats who keep records from many years ago, which makes them easy to sue. The vast majority of cases that we've heard about in the past few years are also from the distant past, virtually all from before 1990. Attitudes to child abuse have changed amazingly through the years -- you'd be startled to hear what mainstream psychiatrists and therapists were saying about both offenders and victims back in the 1960s and 1970s. Catholic authorities are being blamed for decisions taken back in 1975, say, which were perfectly defensible according to the standards of the time, but which look so vicious and reprehensible through the lens of 20-20 hindsight."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benyamin-cohen/scholar-philip-jenkins-on_b_544916....

What were mainstream psychiatrists and therapists saying back in the old days of the 60's and 70's?

I am ready to be surprised.

In my town the child abuse cases that come to mind in recent history - 1 choir director (Protestant), 1 science fair volunteer who happened to be a meteorologist, 3 teachers. These numbers are just from my memory, and have not been verified as to ommissions.

It seems to me that there is more to this issue with the Catholic Church than the media's "questionable assumptions" and anachronistic standards.

A question that has bothered me, other than when does the jail time start, is what is being done for the victims - even those who are older now?

> 135 What were mainstream psychiatrists and therapists saying back in the old days of the 60's and 70's?

My understanding is that after "treatment" offenders used to be pronounced cured and thus okay for reassignment, but that is not the case now.

Wikipedia says, "The rise of public concern--Child sexual abuse became a public issue in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to this point in time sexual abuse remained rather secretive and socially unspeakable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

> 135 In my town the child abuse cases that come to mind in recent history...

If you want to be creeped out, read registry of sex offenders in your neighborhood. I don't know which is worse, the normal-looking guys or the scary-looking ones. Also scary is how easily stupid kids can earn a place on the registry. (I once served on jury for such a case. It was a tough call. Hope we were right then and that I never again have to decide such a matter.)

You are right about the sex offenders registry. There is a magazine on the mag racks for "Just Busted" - people recently jailed - and one for "Sex Offenders".

I think the magazines sell advertisements and post public records with photographs.

I guess people just love to look at bad things happening.

I am probably naive enough to think that my neighborhood does not have any sex offenders - I know most everyone.

At a former job some years ago, 5 of us were at lunch and the topic switched to child abuse. The statistic was that 1 in 5 had been abused. Sure enough one of the ladies volunteered that her father had molested her repeatedly when they were together for a week out of town.

Apparently the mother blamed her for the molesting. She was around 13 at the time of the abuse.

We were shocked that she had volunteered that personal information to the group, but it speaks to how common child abuse is.

And with people you know.

Like most statistics for things some people might not want to think about, like adultery or rape or abortion or homosexuality (let me hasten to say that I don't find all of those things objectionable, I just know some people do). But one hardly ever looks at four married couples they know and thinks "I wonder which ones are cheating?" I've know people who claim they don't know any gay people, which is pretty absurd.

Anyway, in the United States, you can look up registered sex offenders in your neighborhood online and see them plotted on a map. Creepy in a way, but what I discovered was that the majority of them fell into the statutory rape category rather than pedophilia with pre-pubescent children. Still a crime, sure, but I don't get quite the same icks from the idea of a 20-year-old guy having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend as I do from the 40-year-old guy molesting his friend's 9-year-old.

Beatings and tanning beds

"A German bishop accused of beating children decades ago when he was a priest has tendered his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI, the diocese in Augsburg said Thursday, the latest blow to the Roman Catholic Church in Germany as it grapples with a swirling sexual-abuse scandal.

The accused man, Bishop Walter Mixa, was one of the church’s most prominent and outspoken conservatives in Germany, and he aggressively defended himself for weeks against charges of physically abusing children in a Bavarian orphanage.

Accusations have also surfaced of financial irregularities at the orphanage’s foundation. A lawyer hired by the foundation has raised questions about thousands of dollars spent on wine, art, jewelry and even a tanning bed while Bishop Mixa was chairman of the foundation’s board in the 1990s. Bishop Mixa was a priest in the town of Schrobenhausen from 1975 to 1996." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23germany.html?hp

It actually defeats the purpose of listing sex offenders to include the 18 year old sleeping with the 17 year old boy or girlfriend. Surely we can differentiate between predatory abuse and the relations between a couple, at least as far as the permanent label of sex offender.

I want to know who might mess with that boy in my lap on my profile page, not which college freshman had sex with his girlfriend who is a senior in high school.

What About the Girls?
Boys aren't the only victims of the Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandal.
Apr 15, 2010

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236489

>140 richardbsmith: I agree, but as they list the crime of which the person was convicted and the age of the person against whom it was committed, you can tell these things.

I'm not a parent, so I'm not going to take a stand on whether a 16- or 17-year-old girl is able to make an informed choice about having sex. Able or not, informed or not, they are making it.

>139 theoria: The article cited here also mentions the resignation of an Irish bishop, and the BBC version of the same story mentions a US bishop whose resignation was accepted this week. The removal of guilty bishops is happening, albeit rather too slowly and hesitantly. Many would disagree that this represents the latest blow to the Roman Catholic Church and argue that it is good for the Church that guilty members of the hierarchy are on their way out.

Another interesting article on cover ups: Revising history Vatican style

>145 oakes: Isn't Vatican II the most recent authoritative teaching council of the Church? It would seem to me that obedience to the magisterium actually demands obedience to an Ecumenical Council of the pope and all the world's bishops. Unless a pope speaks ex cathedra, which hasn't happened since 1950, it's difficult to just ignore the teachings of a Vatican Council, although you are correct in saying that recent popes seem to have diluted its message. You and I differ on this, of course. You appear to believe that those who are faithful to this authoritative teaching council of the Church are like a few aging hippies (I've worked with a few of the bishops who were present at the Council and they didn't strike me as very hippy-ish, but there we go), whom you appear to view at best as bad Catholics, at worst anti-Catholic. I would suggest that you are a little out of touch with Catholicism in general, and that those who are trying to follow faithfully these most authoritative teachings of the magisterium are really rather good Catholics. And that doesn't make you a "bad Catholic", because I acknowledge that in our very broad Church there are different legitimate interpretations of much of the complex 2,000 year old tradition and doctrine. Whether you like it or not these exist and are being lived by ordinary Catholics (and many of their priests and bishops) all over the world (not just by aging hippies). You don't appear ready to acknowledge anything other than your own interpretation.

US man names Pope Benedict in Milwaukee abuse lawsuit (BBC)

A man who says he was the victim of an American paedophile priest is bringing a lawsuit against the Pope and the Vatican in a US federal court. His lawyers want the Church to release any files it has on abuse cases involving priests.

>148 oakes: Thanks, Oakes, for an interesting response.

Did I really take a "swipe" at ordinary Catholics? I didn't intend or interpret it as such, but my apologies to them if it came over that way. Am I out of touch with ordinary Catholics? Well, of course none of us knows the views of every Catholic in the world. Perhaps I should have said "ordinary Catholics with whom I have come into contact on a regular and professional basis in around a dozen countries on four continents over the last three decades or so". On the basis of that experience I form my opinions, but I concede that others with other experiences may see it differently - which is precisely why I explicitly acknowledge that there are differing stances within our broad Church.

What if one authoritative Council contradicts another, for example? Well, I think that's partly what I'm referring to when I say, there are different legitimate interpretations of much of the complex 2,000 year old tradition and doctrine. Bishops, theologians, popes, councils are struggling with these questions, and they don't all agree. But that doesn't make some of them anti-Catholic.

To suggest that someone who sees the Church differently to you is opposed to the Catholic Church and everything it represents just doesn't make sense, although I may well be opposed to your understanding of the Church. I find it nonsensical to suggest that I am opposed to the Church which I have belonged to for 55 years, and I'm unlikely to have worked for it professionally for my entire adult life if I were opposed to everything that it represents. But clearly you see it differently.

edited to correct italics

> 135 A question that has bothered me … is what is being done for the victims - even those who are older now?

Lots of info from victims’ perspective at Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests http://www.snapnetwork.org/

The US Church now has specially trained victim assistance coordinators for people to call. I recall hearing about a church-sponsored therapy / discussion group for victims in our area. http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/helpandhealing.shtml

During the period 1950-2009, U.S. dioceses paid more than 2.6 billion US dollars in abuse-related costs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Effects_of_lawsuits_on_dio...

that I am interested in and post often about--Catholicism and Christianity

Speaking of your interest in Catholicism, have you figured out what your church's position on divorce and remarriage is? I mean, we know how important it is to you to be in line with doctrine. And judging by the number of posts you put up on the topic of homosexuality and marriage, marriage is obviously of high import to you.

At the risk of sounding a bit uninformed I am going to stick my two cents in.......I don't know much about the doctrine of the Catholic church.....I was however raised by a Christian minister.
Sexual misconduct has been going on since we crawled out of the dust. I myself was groped by a Middle High School band teacher......and almost raped by a man whose children I was hired to babysit for. It is pretty much a given that sexual urges are often acted upon in inappropriate ways.
The thing with the Catholic Church, it would seem to me, is more about hypocrisy than it is about anything else. One of the most dogmatic faiths when it comes to sex and the rules and regulations surrounding one's sexual life, the Catholic Church holds it's members up to some pretty exacting standards. Even today when birth control is almost a must for the survival of our planet.....many of the Catholic churches still insist that it is a sin. I often wondered what would happen if every woman in at a Catholic Church service were asked to leave if she were practicing any type of birth control. Might see pretty many empty spaces in the pews. To me, this smacks of hypocrisy.
Nothing is more irritating than "do as I say and not as I do"
The more the Church tried to hide what was going on in regards to the abuse of children, the bigger the hypocrisy of it all. Like any lie.....it tends to spread out and grow bigger the longer the truth is denied.
The Catholic Church simply acted the way most entities do when caught in a lie.....they just were so very sanctimonious about telling others how to conduct themselves that they were compelled to perpetuate the coverup beyond reason.

I do not practice any organized religion, though I try to be a "spiritual" person. It has been my experience that as human beings we are often weak willed in various ways and since any organized religion is organized by fellow humans it is bound to have flaws. When religions (or those Higher Ups within a religion...including the Pope) become "too big to fail", in my opinion, they become dangerous and often self defeating......embracing the very practices they try so hard to preach against.

a small comment to Jesse: Marriage is a man made institution....we can incorporate our faith into our marriage but many people do not.....the choice is ours. I don't think the Creator gives a rip who you marry as long as you honor the person you have commited yourself to. Again, the Catholic Church is far too concerned about one's sexual practices. It would seem far more important, to me, that they focus on the importance of being an honorable partner and a responsible individual, other than on whether or not one uses birth control or chooses a same sex partner.

In the Catholic Church marriage is a sacrament and is considered instituted by God.

(I do not report this as in any way a reflection of my own thoughts on the matter, just a matter of how the Church views it, which certainly affects some of its other views on the subject, like divorce.)

> 152 -- since any organized religion is organized by fellow humans it is bound to have flaws

But isn't the point of the Catholic Church that it wasn't organized by a fellow human, but was organized by God (in the person of Jesus)? And isn't that organization supposedly sustained by the holy spirit and permeated with a spiritual essence that renders it unlike (actually superior to) any other kind of corporate entity that ever existed? And doesn't the leadership of the CC enjoy a unique relationship with the divine -- to the point where they serve as intercessors between "fellow humans" and the deity?

If any or all of the above is correctly stated, wouldn't it lead one to conclude either:
(a) God is somehow complicit in the behavior of His sanctified representatives on Earth?, or
(b) all the stuff in the previous paragraph is false?

"But isn't the point of the Catholic Church that it wasn't organized by a fellow human, but was organized by God "
.
Isn't that the point of ALL organized religions ? Which, by the way, are similiar in many aspects.....Most especially in the stories of the old testament. Many of the roots of these stories can be traced back to the age of mythology.

As far as Jesus Christ organizing the Catholic Church.....Hm-m-m-m seems a bit far fetched when you consider the life of Christ. He threw the money collectors OUT of the temple. I have heard about the Vatican in Rome....a display of worldly wealth I am told. I believe the Catholic Church is or was quite a wealthy entity....Christ also didn't say much about marriage (who can or who can't) or homosexuality or divorce (the annulment process in the Catholic Church is mind boggling....making bastards out of children by interpreting their way around one of the "rules" of Christianity).....
Reading the Bible is a study in contradictions.....
Timothy 1 chaper 4 verses 1-3
"Now the Spriit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart form the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry and comanding to abstain from meats; which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know truth." Hear ! Hear !

We could argue round and round about what the Bible means on almost any given subject. As it can be a daunting task to figure out just exactly HOW to interpret many of it's teachings, I would think that perhaps those who are "ordained" by God to "help" the rest of us lead spritual lives, would be bound to do so on a more personal level. Not every body is able to comprehend things in the same manner.....
It is my belief that spirituality is a very personal thing and the teachings contained within the Bible are there for ME to figure out.....most organized religions are about telling me what to think and not so much about "how" to think. This is a self serving methodology.......once one starts to think on their own they can't help but see that there may be only one God but there are MANY ways to find him.
A spritually open mind could not possibly look around this planet....see all of the beautiful diversity of peoples and cultures and come to the conclusion that the Creator made all this diversity and then decided that there is only ONE way to honor Him/Her.
As far as the priests having a unique relationship with the divine....it has been my observation that there are many individuals, in all walks of life, who are ordained by the divine.....we need only to open our eyes and be willing to see this.
Again, once an entity becomes "beyond reproach" and sets itself up to the THE answer and the ONLY answer......trouble....men are NOT Gods and are subject to failure even when and if they are "ordained by God"

The MOST Christ like person I have ever had the honor to know claimes that she does not know if God exists or not.....yet most every thing she does is witness to the fact that she believes in something greater than herself.

The Catholic Church would do far better to lead by example rather than to take every word in the Bible and try to redefine it to suit their purposes.....this goes for any religion. Most of the bigger religions have fallen down on the job when it comes to leading by example...

Speaking to the original topic of this thread......Priests in the Catholic Church should not be above the laws that govern any given society...."ordained" or not...they are human beings and are not above human failures. (seems pretty obvious to me)

Sorry for all the misspellings......I certainly wasn't "ordained" by the Maker with an ability to spell words correctly :>0

155> yes

> 155 -- It's not that I disagree with you, but I think that Roman Catholics do see it a different way. For many centuries, they've made the claim that the RCC was explicitly and uniquely created by Jesus, citing Matt. 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I would say this about that......
The "literal" translation is, of course, the argument made by the Catholic Church. I would say that "Peter like" is a principal upon which the church should be built. Just as the teachings of Christ are the way, the truth and the light. Nothing wrong with the message....only that some seem to be bound up in the fact that the stories and teaching must be taken literally. How can this be possible when each human mind is so unique unto itself ? No two people are going to see things the exact same way. It is MAN who drew up the doctrines of the church....the rules and regulations.....the ways around the rules and regulations. I believe that the Bible was given to us as a tool and allowing for the fact that there are many contradictions within the Bible makes it far too open to individual interpretation to be taken literally.


Organized religions DO see things a different way....their existance depends on it. Having said that.....no member of ANY church should count themselves above the laws of society....again....the ministers, priests, nor the Pope himself are God...when they start thinking that they have a special priviledge when it comes to following the laws because of their God, there is bound to be trouble.

From an African archbishop: Archbishop Tlhagale Reflects On Child Abuse Scandals

Oakes, do you reject Vatican II?
You certainly have obliquely had not very good things to say about it.
Please clarify this position, thanks.

Did the Pope know about US sex abuse? - the BBC tries to give a balanced approach here.

And I'd also be interested in the answer to Atomicmutant's question (>162 Atomicmutant:)

Catholic sex abuse scandal could trigger donations slump, Vatican warns (Guardian)

A reduction in indulgences might be a good thing.

You get what you pay for.

A Good Bad Week For Catholicism (NYT)

You could call this an awful week for the church, but I’d call it a relatively good one. The crimes and cover-ups aren’t new; what’s new are the resignations, and the sense that bishops as well as priests are facing accountability for things done and left undone. This spirit of accountability hasn’t reached the college of cardinals yet, unfortunately, where a few retirements to monastic life would be extremely welcome. But change comes slowly, and compared to how the U.S. bishops responded to the crisis in 2002, the series of resignations and proferred resignations on the continent counts as progress.

I came across these today. I suppose these could be good for reflection for all.

The 6 Sins against the Holy Ghost:
Presumption
Despair
Resisting the known truth
Envy of another’s spiritual good
Obstinacy in sin
Final impenitence

3 Conditions for Mortal Sin:
Grave matter
Full knowledge
Deliberate consent

The 9 Ways We Participate in Others' Sins:
By counsel
By command
By consent
By provocation
By praise or flattery
By concealment
By partaking
By silence
By defense of the ill done

Secret sex in the celibate system (National Catholic Reporter)

No researcher so far has assessed that more than 50 percent of Roman Catholic clergy at any one time are in fact practicing celibacy...

Roman Catholic clerical culture favors doctrinal rigidity, conformity, obedience, submission and psychosexual immaturity, mistaken for innocence, in its candidates. These are the personality elements that lead to advancement and power in the clerical system. Single men are more easily controlled if their sexuality is secret. Double lives on all levels of clerical life are tolerated if they do not cause scandal or raise legal problems. Sexual activity between bishops and priests and adult partners is well known within clerical circles. The secret system forms a comfortable refuge for unresolved gay conflicts. There is a new emerging awareness of the systemic nature of sexual/celibate behavior within the Roman Catholic ministry that is increasingly destabilizing to the church.

Dire consequences will follow the exposure of this sexual system embedded in a secret celibate culture. Authorities who are or have been sexually active, although not with minors, are hard put to publicly correct clerics who are abusing minors. The need for secrecy, the cover-up, extends beyond defending criminal activity of a sex abuser. The power and control that holds the Roman Catholic church together depends on preservation of the celibate myth.

The same scenario develops in prison and other "subcultures." Interestingly, men involved in same sex relationships in prison and analogous subcultures do not necessarily view themselves as "gay" (nor are they viewed as gay by other men), in particular if they take the stereotypical "masculine" (i.e., active or dominant) role in the relationship. Hence, one can identify the error the homophobic Catholic hierarchy makes when it attributes sexual abuse to homosexuality per se and when reporters refer to a secret system that "forms a comfortable refuge for unresolved gay conflicts".

> 169 ...No researcher so far has assessed that more than 50 percent of Roman Catholic clergy at any one time are in fact practicing celibacy...Authorities who are or have been sexually active, although not with minors, are hard put to publicly correct clerics who are abusing minors...

The hypocrisy is stunning if less than 50% are true to their vows "at any one time"--that phrase means not just one-time failures we all suffer--and, say, putting divorced Catholics through the wringer in order to remarry in the Church. On the other hand, in a climate of declining expectations, it was heartening in a weird way to read recently that the Wisconsin bishop who pushed the Vatican on defrocking the child-abusing priest was himself in a relationship with an adult male (as disclosed when the guy sued him).

Sexual abuse scandal rocks Boy Scouts of America after $18.5m payout

America's Scouting movement is fighting to keep secret thousands of "perversion files" on suspected child molesters after it was ordered to pay record damages over the sexual abuse of a former Scout.

In a growing scandal threatening to rival the crisis hitting the Roman Catholic church, the Boy Scouts of America has been accused of covering up decades of child abuse in order to protect the reputation of what is now a billion-dollar organisation.

#172, sounds like a Jewish Homosexual problem to me.

Another example of an organization protecting itself at the cost of endangering its purpose and those it is supposed to nurture.

I was a Boy Scout, and my son was a Boy Scout. Not the Eagle variety, but we enjoyed our time with the scouts. Scouting was a great experience for me as a youth, for my son as a youth, and for me as an adult leader. (My wife and daughter not so much. Camping for my wife is a Holiday Inn.)

I hope that the organization will come clean and protect its purpose and kids rather than itself and the molesters.

If it cannot it is time to close down.

Trustworthy. Loyal. Helpful. Friendly. Courteous. Kind. Obedient. Cheerful. Thrifty. Brave. Clean. Reverent.

These should preclude the organization harboring child molesters and putting children at risk with an attitude of cover up.

Can we get the molesters in jail? Can we get those who kept it secret in jail?

The guiding principle, if you are a priest or a scout leader who is molesting children - you will get discovered and you will be prosecuted.

The guiding principle appears to be if you are a priest or a scout leader who is discovered molesting children - we will try to move you quietly, for the good of the organization.

#175, what about the association that the Boy Scouts have with organized religion, and their avowed anti-homosexual stance?
Could religion and homophobia be tied to a tendency to be
a child molester?

I wonder what the proportion of atheist molesters is to religious ones?
hmmm. To paraphrase something I heard before, given the figures, it is prima facie reasonable that the pedophila problem in the Boy Scouts is primarily a religious problem.

:P

On a more serious and reasonable note: my son was a scout for many years and it was a great experience--I have nothing but good things to say about the people
involved that I dealt with. He just "grew out of it" as many do, it
seems.

I was always uncomfortable with the religious portions of the scout
manual, but it was never pushed on us or really required of us to
do that stuff, so I let it pass.

I am a Christian. The scouting troups I have been with were sponsored by churches. But I do not remember my scouting experience emphasizing religion.
camping, merit badges, cooking, campfires, community projects, friends

It might be that the religious aspects were just not noticed because it was just part of what I did with my family or with the scouts - on Sunday we had church. Either at church or at the campsite.

Then we did other stuff.

I think religion, scouting, and schools offer predators access and the cover of the assumption that the predator is acting to help the child.

The problem is that the organizations response is to protect themselves not the children - protect the reputation and the assets.

The answer is immediate response to protect the children, to arrest the criminals; measures to screen adult volunteers and to insist on proper standards of adult/child encounters - open doors, groups, two adults, etc.

Churches, scouts, schools not only provide access to children and the presumption that the adults are there to help and to nurture, the adults are given a position of authority over the child.

It is a perfect set up for a predator - access, cover, authority.

And if the organization acts to keep it secret, then the set up is even better.

#176
I think religion, scouting, and schools offer predators access and the cover of the assumption that the predator is acting to help the child.

The problem is that the organizations response is to protect themselves not the children - protect the reputation and the assets.


Succinctly put!

#176, I also think you've hit the nail on the head, here. Well put.

I'm locally involved in Boy Scout leadership and have been for a few years. I have an Eagle Scout and a Cubbie. For the younger's Cub Scout Pack, I'm the "Training Coordinator." I thought I'd say something.

One of the good things the Boy Scouts have introduced is their "Youth Protection Training" program and policies.

All adult leaders and parent helpers are "trained and certified." I don't know about other geographic areas, but my pack, troop, and council takes it very seriously.

Example key policies include:

Two-deep leadership

There are always two adults present. Every discussion, every car trip, etc. For instance, in my troop it would be a very big deal if somebody (anybody!) took somebody else's kid home in their car.

The policies (often inconveniently) affect car-pooling, pick-up order, drop-off order, tenting, etc. But we follow it to be "above reproach."

No one-on-one contact

A scout is never to be one-on-one with a non-parent adult. Ever. No closed door meetings.

And there are more policies from there.

At least in my son's troop, we follow this. Conversations among parents and with scouts freely and frequently include these principles. The key phrase "two-deep leadership" comes up in practically every activity planning meeting and in the course of the events themselves as well. We frequently have to adapt our activities and order of events to follow these policies. Yes, it often is inconvenient, and sometimes we have to modify and to cancel plans, but that's what we do. What is it that we're trying to teach these kids anyhow??? What really are our priorities???

There's a large group of parents involved in the leadership and helping out. The troop makes sure even those marginally involved are "youth protection trained." BSA has an online site that makes it pretty easy to train people. There are also the background checks done on the leadership.

With a majority of the adults aware of these (what should be "common sense") practices, it makes it a harder environment for the would-be offender to offend.

I don't know how rigorously these policies are followed today across scouting nor do I know what it looked like in years past nor do I know what executives have done or do to "cover up" their offenses. I just know what goes on, on the ground, in my troop, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

As we've been discussing the abuse scandals of the Roman Catholic Church, I've even wondered if the Church should rollout a modified form of the BSA's Youth Protection Training program to its clergy and laity. I would think greater awareness of the problems and risks and pervasive awareness and discipline of the techniques to help avoid would greatly reduce the frequency of occurence.

Again, what values are we trying to teach? What are our priorities?

I've even wondered if the Church should rollout a modified form of the BSA's Youth Protection Training program to its clergy and laity. I would think greater awareness of the problems and risks and pervasive awareness and discipline of the techniques to help avoid would greatly reduce the frequency of occurrence.

I think that's a great idea.

Back that up with an absolute rule to report and cooperate with local
authorities immediately as well.

It's too bad that the Call to Serve Christ isn't enough, and that somehow the moral teachings of The Holy Bible aren't enough.

In scouting, you essentially must inform the Scout Executive and Child Protective Services.

You are advised to not inform others/broadly to avoid personal risk of slander.

In the Church, the parishoner could be required to inform the Bishop and Child Protective Services.

(I'm an AtomicMutant fan as in all of LT, his library is the most similar to mine. :-) Somewhat related, I despise the BSA's anti-atheist stance.)

I didn't notice that. I guess I'm a KenoticRunner fan, then, as well!

You don't have enough books on dinosaurs, Elvis, or Disney though.
Get on that, chop, chop. :D

KenoticRunner doesn't have one single King Kong book either, BTW. Just sayin'...

>180 KenoticRunner: - Just to say that the Catholic Church has been rolling out similar policies, at least since the early 2000s. Whether it's universal, I can't say (much as KenoticRunner can't speak for all scout troops). I'm sure it's patchy. The "two deep" approach seems to be fairly common for organisations dealing with children. There is now a "rule to report and cooperate with local authorities immediately" (>181 Atomicmutant:). Many national bishops' conferences have designated key people nationally and in each diocese to report cases to (>182 KenoticRunner:).

In our parish, anyone who has contact with children is trained in child safety, e.g., the chair of the parent group for the after school program, even though he/she would have no more contact than would any other parent of kid in the program.

Such programs are listed for the US at www.usccb.org/ocyp/safe_environment_2008.pdf

#183 & #184

I'll see your Elvis and King Kong and raise you a church library's worth of fundigelical apologetics, a bunch of Japanese language, some computer science, some Orthodoxy and mysticism, and a bunch of chess too!

(Kindly overlook the completeness of my Tom Clancy though.)

#185

The stuff I mentioned is common scouting policy today--just I don't know if it is as respected/honored/taken seriously in other geographic areas as it is ours. I'd hope so.

In addition to Roman Catholic parishoners, I sometimes wish all parents were trained in some of the techniques. They're "common sense" when you hear them, but all parents, by necessity, are first-time parents.

Just that I'd likely to hope Wisdom has a significant role in the mission of the Church. I've heard we shouldn't forsake Wisdom and that She'll protect us.

Our own church (Lutheran- ELCA specifically) has enacted a number of policies for its pastors in response to what has happened to our Catholic brothers and sisters, and in a few of our own churches. I as a future pastor have had three background checks run on me, one for each new church I have served as a student (Paid for by me). They have also worked with their synods and local congregations to connect them with agencies to run relatively cheap background checks for all the volunteers who work with children. We also do the "two deep" stuff

In addition, our church is far less centralized, secretive, or protective of its pastors. In fact, should I even be accused, I would be immediately removed from the congregation until investigations were completed and perhaps permanently. If anything improper is shown, I would be reported to police as applicable and banned from the church roster for life. I don't disagree with this because this crap is killing our church and devastating the lives of the victims in addition to the faith of the other folks.

A cult within the cult

Jose Barba Martin, the leader of a group of former Legionaries who complained to the Vatican in 1998 that they had been sexually abused as boys, said the appointment of an outsider to administer the order would do little good unless the church also replaced many officials in the upper echelon and rewrote the teachings of the group that stress obedience to superiors and silence about internal problems. “What’s needed is a psychological restructuring,” said Mr. Barba, an historian in Mexico City. “If the same directors remain, it’s going to be very difficult.”

Mr. Barba said Father Maciel’s teachings and practices were intended, essentially, to brainwash young people into thinking obedience to their superiors should trump their own conscience in the face of wrongdoing.

Father Alberto Athié, a Mexican priest who in 1998 tried to bring allegations of sexual abuse by Father Maciel to the attention of Benedict, back when he was a cardinal, said the Holy See had been aware of the order’s strict code of silence and obedience and had done nothing about it...

In 1998, eight Legionaries seminarians filed a complaint with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pope, who was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the head of the body, quashed an investigation in 1999, according to accounts from a Mexican bishop who tried to press the case with him. In 2004, a few months before John Paul died, the future pope reopened the investigation. It eventually found that Father Maciel had abused seminarians, fathered several children and misappropriated funds.

In 2006, Benedict removed him from priestly duties and restricted him to a life of prayer and penance — a punishment that his victims say was not commensurate to his crimes. He died two years later, still a priest. The measures the pope announced Saturday came after an exhaustive investigation of the order and Father Maciel’s crimes by five bishops who formed what is called an Apostolic Visitation, who submitted their report on March 15. The Vatican has said it wants to be transparent in sexual abuse cases, but the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the report’s findings would not be made public. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02legion.html?hp

A "psychological restructuring," "a strict code of silence and obedience," and "transparency" made me think of this passage from Luk 12:

1-3 By this time the crowd, unwieldy and stepping on each other's toes, numbered into the thousands. But Jesus' primary concern was his disciples. He said to them, "Watch yourselves carefully so you don't get contaminated with Pharisee yeast, Pharisee phoniness. You can't keep your true self hidden forever; before long you'll be exposed. You can't hide behind a religious mask forever; sooner or later the mask will slip and your true face will be known. You can't whisper one thing in private and preach the opposite in public; the day's coming when those whispers will be repeated all over town.

4-5 "I'm speaking to you as dear friends. Don't be bluffed into silence or insincerity by the threats of religious bullies. True, they can kill you, but then what can they do? There's nothing they can do to your soul, your core being. Save your fear for God, who holds your entire life—body and soul—in his hands.

Those verses then put the following ones in a very interesting context for both victims and bystanders.

6-7"What's the price of two or three pet canaries? Some loose change, right? But God never overlooks a single one. And he pays even greater attention to you, down to the last detail—even numbering the hairs on your head! So don't be intimidated by all this bully talk. You're worth more than a million canaries.

8-9"Stand up for me among the people you meet and the Son of Man will stand up for you before all God's angels. But if you pretend you don't know me, do you think I'll defend you before God's angels?

10"If you bad-mouth the Son of Man out of misunderstanding or ignorance, that can be overlooked. But if you're knowingly attacking God himself, taking aim at the Holy Spirit, that won't be overlooked.

11-12"When they drag you into their meeting places, or into police courts and before judges, don't worry about defending yourselves—what you'll say or how you'll say it. The right words will be there. The Holy Spirit will give you the right words when the time comes."

(From The Message translation.)

A very interesting teaching on standing up for the Son of Man and on trusting the Holy Spirit.

I even wonder if this social psychological phenomenon is related.

What would a "psychological restructuring" look like?

Amid abuse scandal, advice from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to Pope Benedict (Washington Post)

Who Can Mock This Church? (NYT)

Yet if the top of the church has strayed from its roots, much of its base is still deeply inspiring. I came here to impoverished southern Sudan to write about Sudanese problems, not the Catholic Church’s. Yet once again, I am awed that so many of the selfless people serving the world’s neediest are lowly nuns and priests — notable not for the grandeur of their vestments but for the grandness of their compassion.

As I’ve noted before, there seem to be two Catholic Churches, the old boys’ club of the Vatican and the grass-roots network of humble priests, nuns and laity in places like Sudan...

overwhelmingly it’s at the grass roots that I find the great soul of the Catholic Church...

It’s because of brave souls like these that I honor the Catholic Church. I understand why many Americans disdain a church whose leaders are linked to cover-ups and antediluvian stances on women, gays and condoms — but the Catholic Church is far larger than the Vatican.

And unless we’re willing to endure beatings alongside Father Michael, unless we’re willing to stand up to warlords with Sister Cathy, we have no right to disparage them or their true church.

Kenotic,

I will have to look at the Message translation. Never read it before. It offers an interesting interpretation.

I don't like The Message until I read other Eugene Peterson works. I loved The Jesus Way.

At present, I read NRSV and KJV devotionally. I very rarely read Scripture outside the Office, as outside prayer I read it very analytically and in non-helpful ways.

That said, I do like Peterson's wording from time to time. In many regards, I find Peterson's translations and interpretations to be much that of a caricature; he over-emphasizes and over-exaggerates elements in the original language that he finds to have been theologized in other translations, especially as the language of Scripture has evolved in ways separate from common usage. I find The Message adds a bit of masala to the dish, but it's not the dish for me.

John: Do you know any of the people in the Kristoff piece?

>196 timspalding: Yes, I do. I had dinner with Sr Cathy in Juba just over a month ago; haven't seen Fr Michael for years (it's a huge country).

This article expresses clearly something I have struggled to articulate more than once in various LT threads - that in much of the world the Catholic Church (and the Christian Church in general) is seen as a force for good. It is in the forefront of the struggle for peace, justice and human rights; it is providing basic social and humanitarian services; its bishops, priests, nuns and laity include the sort of selfless people that are mentioned in this article. I'm proud to be part of that in my own small way. I'm no supporter of the Vatican Curia and the old boys' club that covers up a variety of crimes, but they are far from my daily experience of Church.

As a foreign journalist writing for a foreign audience I suppose he found it easier to write about foreign missionaries, which is fine. But if he had written about the Sudanese bishops, priests, nuns and laity, he would have been able to make the same points about the dedication and suffering of the Church's professionals - perhaps even more so.

I could write more but I have to rush to a meeting of church leaders which is part of our contribution to the Sudanese peace process - this is the main priority of the Sudanese Church at the moment.

I had a bookmark on this page in my The Catholic Prayer Book.

O Lord, do not let us turn into "broken cisterns," that can hold not water. Do not let us be so blinded by the enjoyment of the good things of earth that our hearts become insensitive to the cry of the poor, of the sick, of orphaned children and of those innumerable brothers of ours who lack the necessary minimum to eat, to clothe their nakedness, and to gather family together under one roof.

- Pope John XXIII

Blessings to John.

Two speak for 'soul' of Catholic Church, beyond the scandal (USA Today) refers to Nick Kristof's NYT article (>193 John5918:) and also Twelve Things the Bishops Have Learned From the Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis (America)

The second article refers also to the US bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

Kristof reminds me that there are two Redemptorist priests (Fr Mike Shea and Fr Joe Maier) working in Thailand who are absolutely fierce in fighting for the AIDS kids and slum folk who depend on them. Though there are too many sad stories, their letters describing their battles often make me laugh! (The struggle for suitably Christian language can be a challenge... {:>)

http://www.sarnelliorphanage.org/
http://www.sarnelli.org/pages/sarnelli.htm?sp=en

http://www.mercycentre.org/

The ultra-Orthodox face up to abuse (Guardian)

Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on child abuse scandals, as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has discovered

Welcome news for il Papa.

Pope Sees Sex Scandal as Greatest Threat to Church (Wall Street Journal)

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday blamed the church's own sins for the clerical abuse scandal—not a campaign mounted by outsiders... "born from the sins within the church... The church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness but also justice."

And a more general article about paroled sex offenders from the Chicago Tribune: Sex offender housing restrictions may lead to more crimes

#204, but, but, I thought it was the gays and the Jews?

So, The Pope Himself is saying it's not a Homosexual problem?

He must be getting senile, or maybe he's not a True Catholic™.

Pope Benedict silences child abuse conspiracy theorists on Portugal visit (Guardian)

Catholic recruits and the sex abuse scandal (BBC)

Cardinal Schoenborn’s accusation is a welcome sign. It was about time some Catholics in the Catholic Church showed not only guts, but more importantly, that they took their vows seriously and showed some semblance of moral authority. Even with the numerous cases of pedophilia coming to light, what we are seeing is surely just the tip of the iceberg. The amount of sexual debauchery in the church over time was widespread. Think of what priests did to children recently, at a time of decreased church power and control, with mass media, with a 24/7 news cycle, and with open opponents to the church looking for vulnerabilities. Now go back a few centuries to a time of absolute church control and power, no media, no one to complain to, no one to restrain them, no one to defend you, abject ignorance and poverty everywhere, and with the Inquisition on their side to top it off. Think about what priests, nuns, monks, bishops, you name it, did back then. I hope this is the first of many courageous clerics who will speak up, and the beginning of the end of a corrupt organization who—unbelievably—claims to be the self-avowed protector of morals.

Going back to a much earlier comment of mine http://www.librarything.com/topic/87268#1913332

A now national story points to the danger of falsely accusing a teacher.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37103788/ns/today-today_people/?GT1=43001

Darn it, it's the Jews again.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/priest_jewish_press_pushes_perv_2iuc2I...

C'mon, get it straight. It's the GAYS, not the Jews.

I'm all confused here.

Unbelievable! But then, actually no, it is quite believable and sadly consistent with what these people have been saying and thinking all along!

Credit where credit is due --- didn't take them long to disown his remarks & make him apologize. Bet he got a flea in his ear for causing bad press.

There's a pattern at work here. It’s not the first time a priest tries to elude responsibility and blame the Jews for the sexual abuse scandal engulfing the Church. Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, said (and later denied he had said it) that he believed a “Zionist attack” was behind the criticism, considering how “powerful and refined” the criticism was. The center-left daily newspaper La Republica wrote, without attribution, that certain Catholic circles believed the criticism of the church stemmed from a New York ‘Jewish Lobby.’ In this last volley, Rev. Vytautas Volertas, a Catholic priest from Queens, accused the Jews of controlling the media (again!) and magnifying the importance of little things like pedophilia cases totally out of proportion for their own evil Jewish purposes.

Of course Vytautas was then forced to retract by his bishop, but the damage is done. Members of the clergy repeated this sort of statement ad nauseam for centuries. The faithful never questioned this sort of statement. No, the faithful have faith in their priests, who are mouthpieces of god. The faithful uncritically believe authority figures like priests. This sort of statement is at the heart of the hatred toward Jews that eventually led to the Holocaust not too long ago, and continues to stir strong anti-Jewish emotions on the younger generations who go on into the same vicious circle as their forbears, and then go on to repeat the same canards as this priest is now doing.

Catholics historically have blamed Jews for just about every real or perceived misfortune: crop failures, famine, plague and pestilence, military defeats, economic depressions, loss of cultural values, racial impurity, ad nauseum. So it is no surprise that priests are blaming Jews for the cleric sexual abuse scandal.

>213 gwilensky: The faithful never questioned this sort of statement.

That may have been true in the past, but it's not true any more. Part of the reason why these odd few priests and bishops who make such statements are forced to retract them so quickly is that they are unacceptable to the majority. The faithful are questioning rather a lot these days.

No liability on earth

The Vatican on Monday will make its most detailed defense yet against claims that it is liable for U.S. bishops who allowed priests to molest children, saying bishops are not its employees and that a 1962 Vatican document did not require them to keep quiet, The Associated Press has learned.
The Vatican will make the arguments in a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds filed in Louisville, Ky., but it could affect other efforts to sue the Holy See.
The Vatican's U.S. attorney, Jeffrey Lena, said it will include a response to claims that the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" — Latin for "crimes of solicitation" — barred bishops from reporting abuse to police.
Lena said Sunday there is no evidence the document was even known to the archdiocese in question — much less used — and that regardless it didn't mandate that bishops not report abusive priests. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH9I3NH568g_9CE-MMStuwZ3jgfAD9...

Budding priests in a time of crisis: Seminarians enter scandal-scarred vocation (Washington Post)

The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference has a piece on its website about procedures for dealing with sexual abuse here. Interestingly it states that of the 40 cases reported over 14 years, over 50% are complaints of sexual abuse of teenage girls, which suggests a different pattern from some of the statistics elsewhere.

In a letter to The Times, SACBC states: Research done in the US points out that about 3% of Catholic church workers might have been involved in the abuse of minors. Indeed, 3% is too much, but this labelling of the church and church workers as predators conveniently forgets the 97%-plus church workers.

The problem is not that people label the 97% as predators. The problem is the Church hierarchy's response to the 3%. Certainly, victims of cleric abuse are not concerned with lumping the 97% in with the 3%; they are concerned with the .001% who are stonewalling, dissembling, avoiding, and denying, or deflecting. It's too bad the SACBC threw in that line about labeling (more deflecting).

#219

Quite. It isn't that the Church has any monopoly on child molestation, or on covering it up.

But the holy, catholic, and apostolic church can't get away with saying "they did it too." Given their claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the bishops part of the apostolic succession, they should be held, and hold themselves, to a higher standard. (Remember the "Hebrew National" hot dog ads?) If those who claim to represent Jesus and to have the keys to the kingdom of heaven are more concerned about the rapists and about loss of revenue than about helping children who were raped, and protecting other children. . . . That's an incredible betrayal of all those Catholics who accept those claims.

myshelves,

That is absolutely correct. And not just the Catholic Church. And not just child molestation, though child molestation is very high on the list of such standards.

>220 myshelves: If those who claim to represent Jesus and to have the keys to the kingdom of heaven are more concerned about the rapists and about loss of revenue than about helping children who were raped, and protecting other children

myshelves, that's the 0.001% (or whatever) that theoria mentions in >219 theoria:. The 97% have already put in place measures to try to prevent child abuse and cover ups, and are doing their utmost to get the 0.001% to stop stonewalling, dissembling, avoiding, and denying, or deflecting. I don't think it's more deflecting to wish occasionally that the media would report that.

>222 mickeymullen: Mickey, I think you caricature the sacrament of reconciliation (confession).

Two more articles:

Italians say priests should marry as confidence in Pope falls (Times)

Irish cardinal defies calls to resign over priest's child abuse (Guardian)

#223

It makes a big difference when the tiny % are the people running the church --- the ones who elect the Pope from among their ranks. As long as they continue to hold their prestigious offices (and live their privileged lifestyles), the stench will continue to rise.

>224 myshelves: They are old men and they're going to die soon. While I don't necessarily think that the new generation of power brokers is any better, I do believe that the climate has changed on sexual abuse and cover ups. Apart from anything else, the focus has shifted to the national bishops' conferences (one of the key planks of Vatican II, of course, which was subsequently resisted by the Roman curia), most of which have already implemented robust protocols on sexual abuse.

#225

That's waaay too cynical for me.

I was raised a Catholic, and spent 11 years in Catholic schools. I decided that I didn't buy the whole supernatural/superstition bit, but I didn't think that the church I'd belonged to, in which I still have friends & family (some in religious orders), would stoop to protecting and enabling members of their clergy who raped children placed in their care. I feel betrayed --- or perhaps foolish, for having given Rome any credit for caring about morality or human decency.

What happened to "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"?

What about the fact that many are unrepentant and some even defiant?

What message does this send to the victims?

What about justice being done, and being seen to be done?

You going to invest in Enron with Ken Lay & Jeffrey Skilling & Andrew Fastow and the rest of the crooks still running it?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Enron)

>226 myshelves: myshelves, 97% of us (or 99.99% or whatever) agree with you. That's why change is taking place. There's a living Church out there where people (including their bishops and priests) are trying to behave well and are a real force for good (in the forefront of justice and peace in some of the African countries where I work, for example). They are appalled by what has happened and feel as betrayed as you do. They would like the small number of leaders who are still dragging their feet on this issue to repent and/or resign. Some of the leaders have done so, under pressure; others haven't. But do I expect the type of person who has made a career out of working their way up to the top of a powerful institution to change radically? Well, no. There are examples of people who make it to the top and behave differently (John XXIII is one; Oscar Romero is a classic example of someone who sided with the oppressors until he suddenly saw the truth, and then made a radical change which ultimately cost him his life), but the life and spirit of the Church is not at the top, it is at the bottom. Again I refer to >193 John5918: above.

If 97% or 99% agreed with me, were outraged by the conduct of the prelates, and weren't afraid of bucking people who have the power to deny them sacraments, they could bring enough pressure to send all of the perps packing. Cutting off the flow of money would do wonders.

>228 myshelves: I can't really disagree with you there, myshelves, but I would still say that there are a hell of a lot of people out there just getting on with being Church, regardless of the prelates.

#229

Too busy to tackle driving the unrepentant (not to mention criminal) aiders & abettors of child rape out of the temple?

WWJD?

>230 myshelves: Why assume that it has to be either/or, rather than both/and?

#231

Not seeing any signs of both/and. Didn't you just say that the perps are old, so wait for them to die off?

>232 myshelves: I also said, "I do believe that the climate has changed on sexual abuse and cover ups", "change is taking place", they "have already put in place measures to try to prevent child abuse and cover ups, and are doing their utmost to get the 0.001% to stop stonewalling, dissembling, avoiding, and denying, or deflecting".

I think people are doing what they can in their own way. A number of senior figures have resigned as a result of pressure, and more will follow. Changes are visible. But the power structures of the Church will not change in one year or one generation. The guilty few who are clinging to power will die off soon and they will be replaced by prelates who might still be power brokers but who at least will not be guilty of any new cover ups. One of the ways the Church at every level has responded is to try to protect children in the present and future.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I suppose it depends on whether you see the glass as half empty or half full - and slowly getting fuller.

> 233 I suppose it depends on whether you see the glass as half empty or half full - and slowly getting fuller.

I guess I tend to see this particular glass as so cracked and befouled that it seems much better get another one.

Or, as someone much wiser than I once said:

No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved. No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’"

Here is an example of the disconnect.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072&ft=1&f=2&...

Excommunication for approving an abortion that apparently was needed to save the life of the expectant mother.

This is contrasted to the actions against child molesters.

Some on LT might remember that I generally take a position opposing abortion, but this action to excommunicate a hospital administrator acting within the law and in good faith trying to protect a life to the best of the available knowledge, compares rather poorly to the general reaction wrt to abusive priests.

"you can't do evil to bring about good."

Where are the excommunicated abusive priests?

What is the purpose of excommunication?

The Church takes the position that abortion is murder.

Hey Oakes, can you look in that encyclopedia and tell me what your church's position on divorce and remarriage is?

Not going to offer me anything on excommunication. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to take my medicine. I appreciate the suggestion about using google, though I'll probably not report back to you. I hope you do not mind.

To ask another question. You seemed to offer that the Church might have done "some of all that has been alleged of it in terms of inaction, coverups and the like" only as a concession for argument's sake, to continue the discussion about the nun who has committed murder in the opinion of the Church.

Do you think that the Church has actually engaged in cover up of child molestation by a number of its priests? Or is that not established in your opinion?

The Church takes the position that abortion is murder. It follows that one cannot have or give an abortion that directly kills one person for the purpose of saving the life of another person, just as one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person.

Umm, self defense? Necessity?

Just War?

Goodnight, Saigon. Goodnight, Iraq.

Goodnight, holy Crusaders.

If a person really thinks molestation is morally worse than (or even equal to) murder, then I would suggest that the moral disconnect, if there is one, is not with the Church.

Pretty sly how you left out the word "child" in there. I suppose you don't feel it helps your case.

I think it ought to be pretty clear at this point just who is having the moral disconnect.

Hold the chorus. Now we get the hair-splitting between killing and murder.

It doesn't count if you can get someone else to do it for you. Oakes has been watching too much "Lost".

Well, that depends on how you define "direct".

Nice evasion. Self-defense is the direct killing of someone to save the life of another. Pretty much universally considered to be morally justified. It is even considered to be morally justified to kill a morally innocent person to defend one's own life (transferred intent for example, or killing someone under an irresistable compulsion). Heck, it is generally acknowledged to be morally justified to kill in defense of a third party.

None of this has anything to do with whether the killing is direct or indirect. In a self-defense situation, the killing is almost always assumed to be direct. Would you like to take another shot at the question?

Not particularly. I think I'll evade you again.

You heading for the hills with your tail between your legs is getting to be a familiar sight.

There's no other way to describe your style.

1. You make a big sweeping pronouncement that is riddled with error, like: "just as one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person."
2. Holes are punched in your argument by people who know what they are talking about.
3. You get upset, split hairs, evade, dissemble, and backtrack.
4. You get huffy and complain about how rude everyone is to have pointed out that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and run away, with your tail between your legs. Until you think people aren't paying attention. Then you surface again to try your luck at making the same arguments.

What's the distinction between "killing" and "murder"?

Interesting stories lately demonstrating how much leeway individual bishops (in a topdown church) seem to have in disciplining religious and laymen and how unreflective some of these decisions appear:

abusive priests (protected/defrocked),

politicians who support abortion (Eucharist/not),

nuns who support health bill (not allowed recruit ads),

votes for pro-choice Obama (confess before receiving Eucharist),

students with gay parents (admitted/not), and now

this nun who allowed abortion to save life of the mother (excommunicated).

With regard to the latter, "Although not specific on allowing abortion, the Catholic Church has rules allowing for “all necessary treatment” to save the life of the mother — provided the procedure is conducted by a trained doctor or doctors." http://www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/When%20Church%20laws%20%20allow%20for%20ab...

According to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, "the Catholic bishop at the center of the abortion excommunication controversy once refused communion to a 10-year-old child with autism".

There are some smart, good men serving as RC bishops, but it doesn't sound like this guy is one of them.

>256 margd: how much leeway individual bishops (in a topdown church) seem to have

Interesting point, margd. Theologically at least the Church is not as top down as many (including the Vatican) think. The Pope is "first amongst equals" rather than CEO, and bishops are very independent in their own dioceses. The Pope appoints bishops, which gives him a lot of power, but I think he has to go through due process before he can remove them. The most authoritative teaching body in the Church is an ecumenical council of all the bishops together with the pope, such as Vatican II, unless the pope makes an ex cathedra teaching, which has only ever happened once or twice, the last one in 1950 I believe. In practice the Vatican does find ways of exercising control in many ways, but it's not as clear cut as it might seem.

There are some smart, good men serving as RC bishops, but it doesn't sound like this guy is one of them. Amen.

So the local Bishop declared that the nun was automatically excommunicated. That's an interpretation on his part, right? Does everyone in his see have to accept it?

Does she have an appeal, and if so, to whom? Can the Mercies (my old h.s. teachers) refuse to expel her? (I suspect that they can, but they'd probably be getting some black marks from the Inquisition ...er... Visitation.

How does canon law get enacted/changed? Where does that legislative power lie? And I assume that due process is determined by canon law?

Who does the judging? Who appoints the judge(s)? (Quis custodiet ...?)

Where does the power to defrock lie? They seem to have been having some jurisdictional wars over the past decades.

Questions and Answers Regarding the Canonical Process for the Resolution of Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons (USCCB)

Oakes,

# 246 "Yes and no" ??

It does not seem that you are going to help me with the question about perceptions and reality of the Church's actions to cover the predatory activities of its priests any more than you care to help me with a better understanding of excommunication.

I'll move on to another question, but given previous experience I am not expecting an answer. Please be patient with me. It is hard for me to move past #236 without a better understanding of what was stated there. With so many comments made since #236, I fear I'll fall behind.

Do you think the nun committed murder?

>237 richardbsmith: What is the purpose of excommunication?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think excommunication is just the state of serious sin that precludes one from Communion, but not from attending Mass or Reconciliation. We tend to think of it, though, in terms of the public announcements.

Google: "Only in cases where a person's excommunicable offense is very public and likely to confuse people is a person's excommunicated status even announced, and that usually by a simple statement from a Church official." The intent of a public announcement is to alert the faithful that an action does not have approval of the church.

Excommunication is reversible. Some can be reversed by a priest in sacrament of Reconciliation (e.g., the nun in question), but some need a bishop, and a few the Pope, to reverse. In light of current sex abuse scandal I was appalled to read (I think in the Catholic Encyclopedia that Oakes recommended) that those who strike a priest incur excommunication that requires a Pope to reverse. Such class of excommunication is a very old attempt to protect priests from brigands and foreign princes, I think, but quite a contrast to treatment of clerics who abuse.

(See ETA below.) I was also surprised to learn that divorced Catholics who remarry without prior annulment become not just sinners, but one of the (garden variety, unannounced) excommunicated. For reinstatement, annulment of first marriage and blessing of second would be required. Adulterers, on the other hand, need only the sacrament of reconciliation. (Not fair! There's a whole lot less laundry to be done in adultery! {:>)

(See ETA below.) Not all clerics regard excommunication for remarriage that seriously--two priests have indicated willingness to include me (with my inconvenient marriage) at the communion rail. On the other hand, there was some kind of row (among Knights of Columbus?) over my spouse's being recruited on a regular basis to help with collection. I guess to them that counts as one of the offices off-limits to the excommunicated. (Sheesh.) Similarly, if the publicly announced excommunication stands, the Sisters of Mercy will need to reconsider any public role for the nun in question, I think. My guess is that some at least will support her privately.

ETA: #263 "1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

who strike a priest incur excommunication

A group of Georgetown students back in the 50s mounted a boisterous "panty raid" on the nunnery adjacent to the school. It was in a spirit of high fun and apparently many of the nuns thought it very funny. Nevertheless, besides being reprimanded by the school, the students were forced to endure one minute of excommunication for the offense. Story may well have been embellished, but it was told me by a claimed participant, not the usual campus lore.

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

Can you prevail on Stormraven to lay off calling me on my style, the holes in my arguments, my evasion, dissembling, backtracking, huffiness, cowardliness and surprise surfacing for a moment? I had a good thing going for a while and now I feel that my strategy, as it were, has been exposed.

I think you'd probably do better to take that up with SR directly.

Can you prevail on Stormraven to lay off calling me on my style, the holes in my arguments, my evasion, dissembling, backtracking, huffiness, cowardliness and surprise surfacing for a moment? I had a good thing going for a while and now I feel that my strategy, as it were, has been exposed.

Probably not. Oddly enough, I don't control his posts. Mayhap you can take that up with him directly.

> 263 Boy, theoria--you're really on top of this stuff! I don't see a functional difference, though, from garden-variety, unannounced excommunication: one cannot receive Eucharistic communion, but one can attend Mass, etc. Lots of loose ends and inconsistencies have built up over the centuries, I guess.

(Funny, one Easter in Bangkok, I attended an Anglican service in which the priest announced an open policy for communion. "Oboy!" I thought, only to be deflated a minute later by his one condition that communicants be in good standing in their home church... )

Can you prevail on Stormraven to lay off calling me on my style, the holes in my arguments, my evasion, dissembling, backtracking, huffiness, cowardliness and surprise surfacing for a moment?

There's an easy way to get people to stop doing that.

Catching up on threads this morning is like watching Godzilla move through Tokyo.

It makes you feel Japanese?

It gives one the Vapors.

Hey, look here, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that it is okay to kill one person to save another person's life. Some relevant snippets:

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself.

The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own.

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes much further than this, and announces that it is okay to kill someone merely to defend property:

It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the agressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice.

The full entry can be found here. I look forward to seeing how Oakes backtracks on his claim that "It follows that one cannot have or give an abortion that directly kills one person for the purpose of saving the life of another person, just as one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person.".

Giving benefit of the doubt, maybe he was sick when they covered that in Catechism. Or the dog ate his homework. Whatever.

I suspect the fetus would not be considered an unjust assailant—nor a wanton aggressor. They do take your property like all heck, though.

I believe the pertinent part of the quote being responded to is:

"one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person."

Right, but in a not-loose context "murder" is unjust killing, not killing.

I suspect the fetus would not be considered an unjust assailant—nor a wanton aggressor.

Ah, but your brother went much further than that when he made his sweeping pronouncement. he said:

"one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person."

Note that he said any context. I would also point out that the moral innocence of the attacker may not be an issue - for example if you are attacked by an insane person (who would be considered to be morally innocent), and you had to kill them in self-defense, then that would be justified. In this context, if the life or bodily integrity of the mother was at risk, the moral innocence of the fetus would not necessarily be an impediment to killing them in self-defense.

It's another tradition, of course, but the concept of fetus as rodef has indeed been applied to such situations.

"one cannot murder one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person."

Well, in fairness, there's no contradiction because, under standard moral rules, you can never murder anyone for any reason. Murder by definition is unjust killing. You cannot murder an insane person, but, if he's attacking you with a knife, you may kill him.

Then how do we parse that phrase, because it seems contradictory to use the word "murder" in the context of "saving the life of another person", which, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, isn't murder.

Basically--killing to save the life of another person, isn't murder.

Though, all of this is moot in the face of The Ten Commandments, which don't include asterisks at all, if I'm not mistaken.

>277 StormRaven: "but your brother went much further than that when he made his sweeping pronouncement"

Just to be a jerk, I'm going to insert Tim's def'n of "murder" from #276 into Oakes' "sweeping statement":

"one cannot unjustly kill one person in any context for the purpose of saving the life of another person."

Put that way it seems kind of redundant and useless...unless per that other thread, "the purpose of saving the life of another person" is a special exception, allowing that there are some contexts in which one can unjustly kill another.

I don't intend to make anything out of this. But others can if they want.

BTW, anyone check where a 11 wk fetus is, developmentally? It's about the size of a lime, the head is as big as the rest of the body, the extremities are webbed, and it still has 29 wk of development left. That fetus was going to die one way or another, given the mother's condition. Plus, the mother obviously wants kids, and would likely try again if she can. Letting her die when she could be saved would be like killing off her future children. So why not save the mother?

> 280 don't include asterisks

You still have to decide what ratsach means.

It would seem that someone has chosen to deflect the conversation from the topic at hand. Getting into the minutiae of abortion, murder, just and unjust killing is fine, but trying to make some specious justification that child molestation is somehow not so bad in comparison is repugnant. And regarding the nexus of the divergent arguments, if anyone committed such an act against one of my children, then there would most assuredly be blood.

I'm still waiting for a straight answer to post 240.

Well, in fairness, there's no contradiction because, under standard moral rules, you can never murder anyone for any reason. Murder by definition is unjust killing. You cannot murder an insane person, but, if he's attacking you with a knife, you may kill him.

But you must admit that this interpretation turns Oakes' original quote's meaning on its head.

Just to be a grammar Nazi, I would point out that you can, indeed, murder an insane person. You simply would not be morally jusified in doing so. However, if an insane person attacks you with a knife and you kill him, you may be morally justified in doing so.

#283, hear hear.

"Getting into the minutiae of abortion, murder, just and unjust killing is fine, but trying to make some specious justification that child molestation is somehow not so bad in comparison is repugnant."

It is veering way off topic to discuss abortion.

It's the comparison that was made that's relevant, and ugly.

It is veering way off topic to discuss abortion.

It's the comparison that was made that's relevant, and ugly.

Sorry for the digression. But I think it should be noted that when he wheeled off the make the comparison, Oakes attempts to make some sort of moral sliding scale where "child molestation" is less bad than "abortion" seem to have foundered on the inherent contraditctions of his argument.

Why even make the statement that murder is worse than child molestation?
Why? The only effect it has is to portray the "well, it's not that bad" attitude.
Perhaps you should consider the obverse, that you made a not very instructive
comparison that is easily misconstrued--and was--by many. If you truly didn't
mean to diminish the moral gravity of child rape by your comparison, then please say so.

Here's a question/comment. Insofar as I know, the church does not have an official position on child rape. If it does, I would like to read it.

The question is, if the church WERE to have such a policy, would excommunication be a reasonable response to such a moral offense? What would/should the reasonable Christian/Catholic doctrine be towards child rape?

The claim was that murder is worse on the scale of moral crimes than molestation (or child molestation, if you prefer)--a reasonable claim, I think--and that this, if one makes certain assumptions, could justify excommunication for murder but not molestation (though I don't think that's quite what is actually going on).

Evade, dissemble, backtrack.

You are so predictable.

287

To twist that, for personal or ideological reasons into a smirky "he doesn't think molestation is so bad", "his views are repugnant", "ugly", and so on is childish and sickening. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The day your moral assessment of anyone counts for anything, I'll eat my hat.

I may have missed it, but have you yet made a clear statement of your assessment of the child molestation issue in the Church? You appear to be avoiding doing so in an effort to avoid having to make a direct criticism of the star to which you have hitched your wagon.

You give your take on what "Group Talk" should be, after going into a snit and telling other that they ought to be "ashamed". If you believe your interlocutors are acting in such bad faith, then why do you bother with these threads at all? But I suppose you think that such statements give you adequate cover while you, yet again, run away.


If the subject wasn't so repugnant, your evasion would be comical.

It's getting very difficult to follow this thread if one doesn't have a clue who the following individuals are or how they may relate (or fail to relate) to each other: timspaulding, oakesspaulding, stormraven, makifat, atomicmutant, and a few others.

I can look at the profile pages for each of the above and still not find myself in a state of enlightenment. Kind of like reading an Agatha Christie, but having to start on page 79.

You know how on "Law & Order" or "The Closer" they draw up on a white board all the suspects with pictures and salient comments and lines connecting all and sundry? I think the FBI also did this kind of thing in order to try to keep the members of the Cosa Nostra straight.

I think something like that would help.

291
There is a lot of water under the bridge. Enough to give even Heraclitus the heebie-jeebies.

If you want to take a few days to review a few hundred threads, you could follow the flags.

Come to think of it, someone did try to tell me I'd be sleeping with the fishes soon the other day. It'll be water and me under the bridge at that point, I guess.

Trying to get back to the excommunication stuff, I've had a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia and it seems to me that almost all the offences which merit excommunication are offences against the Church rather than sins/crimes as such. It's about Church governance and discipline, ecclesial jurisdiction, respecting the persons of ecclesiastical authority figures, Church land and property rights, apostasy, heresy, simony, schism, etc - including Tim's panty raid on a nunnery (>262 timspalding:). It's not about sins/crimes per se - murder, rape, torture, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. Thus it seems that it's a way of excluding from the Church those who have set themselves apart from the Church as an institution/community/society in some way, rather than sinners/criminals. It's not primarily about punishing sinners, as the Church recognises that we are a Church of sinners.

The exceptions seem to be duelling and abortion. The encyclopedia tries to explain where the former came in under particular historic circumstances ("The malice of the duel lies in the fact that it makes right depend upon the fate of arms"), but I have no idea when or why abortion came in - maybe someone else knows? If it is relatively recent, then it might be because it has become a single issue indicator of one's orthodoxy in the eyes of some Catholic authorities, so it might be more about orthodoxy than abortion. Otherwise it doesn't appear to make sense to have abortion as an excommunicable offence when so many other forms of killing are not.

There's an interesting snippet from the Council of Trent (1545-63): "Although the sword of excommunication is the very sinews of ecclesiastical discipline, and very salutary for keeping the people to the observance of their duty, yet it is to be used with sobriety and great circumspection; seeing that experience teaches that if it be wielded rashly or for slight causes, it is more despised than feared, and works more evil than good." Apart from the warning about the efficacy of excommunication, it highlights that it is about "ecclesiastical discipline" and "observance of... duty" rather than sin/crime.

John,

I do not want to push this question too far.

If excommunication is the sword of church discipline and the salutary to force a pious focus on duty, I personally do not understand why the decision to allow an abortion under the circumstances described in the NPR story is grounds, but molesting children from a position of spiritual authority over a period of years for the purpose selfish gratification is not.

> Oakes, I think the issue for me is not whether abortion is right or wrong. The issue is why one form of killing (or murder) is treated so differently by the Church from other forms of killing (or murder). Personally I'm against abortion. I'm also against murder, extra-judicial execution by state security forces, killing of civilians in war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the deaths of babies and children all over Africa due to preventable causes such as poverty, malnutrition, inadequate health facilities and curable/preventable diseases. Why is one an excommunicable offence and the others aren't? Why is one a measure of one's Catholic orthodoxy and the others aren't? Why is one the subject of massive campaigning in certain western countries and the others aren't? At the same time the Church recognises exceptions to the general commandment against killing - eg self-defence, just war, capital punishment - but appears unable to recognise that there might be similar exceptions regarding abortion - eg when the survival of mother and baby are at risk. People are asking the question, "Why?", and I don't know the answer.

Edited to add: Another story about the Mercy Sisters, which has just been sent to me: Mercy Sister returns to Sudan to help local women improve child, maternal health (Catholic San Francisco)

Abortion is killing something. I think it is killing a human life. The question is when and who decides.

Societies and the historical church when in power as a civil authority allow killing. The question is the authority for the decision. Labeling abortion as murder does not advance the abortion discussion. It creates bridges to discussion, even as more are aborted.

Now, abortion is legal in the US. That means in the US it is not murder, or those involved might now be arrested.

To return to one of the questions I had previously asked, "Do you think the nun committed murder?"

>298 oakes: 2. No, I didn't say I'm against poverty and malnutrition (although in fact I am). I said I'm against "the deaths of babies and children", amongst a lot of other serious things including abortion and murder.

3. No, I didn't say, "The current Church is hypocritical on the matter". I asked questions and said, "I don't know the answer".

Edited to add: If you or anybody else can answer those questions it might help to move the conversation forward.

Excommunication probably meant more for Christians in the days when there was only one Christian church and the only one road to salvation ran through the Catholic Church, that is, before 1521 when Luther was excommunicated. Now one has a choice between the Vatican brand and various Protestant sects.

#257

Interesting comments on Vatican II:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/20/pope-benedict-vatican...

#300, what's the point of arguing?

Oakes has plainly said he does not trust you. You have broken the most solemn vow you can break--before God and Oakes himself!

Why even bother with the likes of you? You sure aren't a True Catholic™ even though you may be a good guy and all that.

298

Is there anyone else who wants to take a stand on the question?

You mean the question of the Church's culpability in the sexual molestation of children and it's longstanding protection of criminals? That is the question, after all. A question you have tried extremely hard NOT to "take a stand on".

304: Sure, I'll take a stand. The church's institutionalized cover up of the repeated crimes of its members is unconscionable, and not only should the individual members who molested children be prosecuted for the crimes they committed, but the leaders of the church should be indicted for obstruction of justice and being accessories after the fact, and the organization itself prosecuted under RICO and have all its assets in the U.S. seized.

305
Good. So you believe that aiding and abetting sexual predators of minors is wrong and ought to be punished. As for me, I agree completely (although I won't hold my breath on the seizure of assets thing).

Anyone else? Oakes?

> 294 I have no idea when or why abortion came in

Sixtus V's Effraenatam Perditissimorum. When: 11/29/1588. Why: mainly to address the problem of prostitution in Rome (though others here may disagree with that analysis).

ETA: Here is a timeline further including the proximate Sedes Apostolica and the modern Apostolicæ Sedis Moderationi. (The site has an agenda which some here may oppose, but I believe the facts are correct.)

#307

I'm puzzled about this statement in the timeline:

Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication.

Was excommunication "the penalty designated for homicide"?

>302 myshelves: Thanks, myshelves - interesting article. Hans Kung's recent view on the matter can be found in this thread, and some reflections on Newman and Vatican II in another Guardian article here

>307 MMcM: Thanks, Mike, for clarifying.

> 308 Was excommunication "the penalty designated for homicide"?

Yes, lots more sins were worthy of excommunication in the Decretum Gratiani. Here's a convenient summary, from The making of Gratian's Decretum.

>301 theoria: Excommunication probably meant more for Christians in the days when there was only one Christian church

Is excommunication perhaps a hangover from the days when Church and state authority were closely connected?

311: Excommunication was also used as a way to discipline rulers - if a king strayed from their duties to the church then the entire nation could be excommunicated (or placed under interdict, which is similar, though if I recall correctly, not as serious).

One could also point out that even before Martin Luther, there was more than one Christian church, though the relevance of the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic Churches (for example) was not particularly pronounced in Western Europe.

in 296, Oakes said "few knowledgeable Catholics openly and explicitly dissent from the Church's teachings on abortion."

On the other hand, at least one study suggests that Catholic women are more likely than Protestant women to have abortions: "The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women, according to study author Rachel K. Jones." (from FactCheck.org)

I can certainly understand why most Catholics are not willing to openly dissent from the Church's teachings on abortion, although I'd say that getting one is a pretty explicit dissent (well, I suppose you could argue that they are doing it and simultaneously believing that they are committing murder).

This all seems to have wandered pretty far from the discussion of sexual abuse, though.

To sin in silence is no sin at all, to paraphrase someone else?

I doubt that there is a Catholic in the US not living under a rock who isn't aware that her church regards abortion as murder --- and a heap big sin. OTOH, I'd bet that some Catholics I know are unaware that they've been automatically excommunicated.

316: As far as I can tell, they aren't. Abortion, like most other sins in Catholic teaching, appears to be forgivable, and forgiveness is generally as close as the nearest confessional. Those who are excommunicated are denied the sacraments (save for reconciliation), which would make confession kind of difficult.

As far as I can tell, they aren't

Contemporary Catholic teaching is that people who procure or assist someone to procure an abortion are automatically excommunicated.

The official follow-on is not clear, since abortion clinics are not in the habit of sending patient names to Rome. While it's clear that, under Canon Law, such an individual should not attempt to receive communion, the priest should not, I think, withold it absent a declared excommunication or very public knowledge about the situation

Of course, if they don't agree with the church position, they might see no need to confess, so....

Still not addressing the molestation thing, eh Oakes? Taken with your deep and grave concern with abortion, would it be fair to assume that you consider the fetus sacred, but once the child is born, the Church has no responsibility to protect them from the predators in their midst?

Nor the divorce/remarriage thing, either.

ejj at #313:

On the other hand, at least one study suggests that Catholic women are more likely than Protestant women to have abortions: "The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women, according to study author Rachel K. Jones." (from FactCheck.org)

The theory in the public health community is that (American) Catholic girls and women think that contraception is a sin each time it's used, and so are more likely to avoid condoms, etc.; but, on the other hand, abortion is only a single instance of sin, a single instance that might never be needed.

So they play the odds. And lose.

>323 AsYouKnow_Bob: Yes, I imagine either the thought that the use of contraception is a sin, or perhaps the ignorance of how to use contraception, may keep Catholic girls/women from using it. But it must take some convoluted reasoning to accept having premarital sex (another sin) but being unwilling to use contraception (because it's a sin). Unless the girl/woman is using the "getting carried away" rationale every time.

Oh, the "premarital sex"-sin is viewed as trivial: that's what confession is for. Certainly it's not as sinful as contraception. One is a natural human urge (which is pretty much the definition of sin); the other is an attempt to foil god's will.

I wonder how they get those abortion figures.

1. Do they rely on the women to self-identify that they are religious (Catholic or Protestant)? People might identify themselves as one or the other without actively particiating in any church. I.e., what level of personal religiousity do they express in general practice?

2. Statistics would also seem to indicate that women who are members of minority groups obtain abortions at a much higher rate than nonminority members. If nonminority groups are factored out of the figures--essentially getting rid of another variable--what would statistics indicate between Catholics and Protestants then? It would be nice to control for economics as well. I.e., once you control for any variation caused be differences in income, what happens then?

Sometimes statistics can be really misleading. Also, correllation does not mean causation; though, additional investigation is needed.

If the statistics are accurate, it might also be that Catholicism relies on shame rather than guilt to a greater degree than Protestantism? Could it be that more emphasis is placed on ritual and appearance and less on personal conscience in one sect than another?

On the issue of molestation, Churches, including the Vatican, keep apologizing and paying out huge restitution sums for these scandals, but I'm really unclear on what they are doing to prevent abuse in the first place and what procedures they have instituted to deal with sex offenders swiftly and effectively when they are discovered.

If the Pope has used phrases like "I am dismayed" by the sex scandals. How about he show more emotion than I do when go to the freezer and find out that my husband has finished the last popsicle? Dismayed??!?!?!?!? How about sickened or disgusted by not only the abuse but the degree to which the Church has ignored and in some instances all but condoned acts of abuse? He urges people not to "judge and condemn one's neighbor...," clearly echoing Matthew 7:1's "judge not lest you be judged." I'm sure God put that in the Bible so that churches could tell sex abuse victims not to bitch.

I am sure that the Pope is actually very sorry about the abuse, but what a poor choice of words and what a horrible idea to lecture victims when the Church's hands are unclean. It isn't even like a judge lecturing a victim; it's like letting the perpetrator's mother lecture the victim.

I understand that if a priest confesses to another priest during reconcilation/confession, that that is private and sacred; however, so many of the acts of abuse were discovered through other means and could have been reported immediately to the authorities.

If the church ordained women, there would be no sex abuse crisis (National Catholic Reporter)

Would it have helped? Yes, probably. Would it have stamped out all abuse? Not likely--that would take a fundamental change in human nature, I'd imagine. After all, there are plenty of women teachers, but abuse of children in schools still occurs (sometimes perpetrated by women).

The writer is also a bit naive in imagining that allowing women to be priests is all it would take for gender equality--there's that little matter of equal pay, for example.

328
My hunch, and it's nothing more than a hunch, is that enforced celibacy (and the psychosexual effects that can go with it) and the sense of power that comes with being, in essence, a "God surrogate" to young people plays into it more than the gender of the priest.

And before anyone asks, no, I don't have any data to support that hunch, other than almost 50 years of observing human nature.

Yes--the one thing predictable about power is that nearly everyone who has it abuses it in some way.

>327 John5918:, 329
End of celibacy, women ordained?

Rome does change its doctrine, ways and morals, given some time heretics even become catholic heroes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100522/ap_on_sc/eu_poland_copernicus_reburied

“Saturday's Mass was led by Jozef Kowalczyk, the papal nuncio and newly named Primate of Poland, the highest church authority in this deeply Catholic country”

Australia Archbishop: Church Culture Tied to Abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/24/world/AP-AS-Australia-Church-Abuse.ht...

"In Brief to High Court, U.S. Supports Vatican in Sex-Abuse Case"

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/25/in-brief-to-high-court-us-supports-vatican-i...

Italian priests' secret mistresses ask pope to scrap celibacy rule (Guardian)

Forty women send unprecedented letter to pontiff saying priests need to 'experience feelings, love and be loved'

LOL. Those Italians! Has the pontiff replied?

Yesterday investigator Ursula Raue reported on the Jesuit schools in Germany.
Germany’s leading Jesuit official reacted:

““I ask for forgiveness,” he said, adding that there was a “widespread mentality in the order, and perhaps still is, that the primary concern was the reputation of the institution and its fellow brothers.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/europe/28jesuit.html

re #21 Perhaps it is compulsory celibacy as opposed to optional celibacy that contributes to the dilemma. For instance, there does not appear to be as much pedophilia among Buddhist monks -- or in the Episcopal, Lutheran, Orthodox, and other churches that have monasteries and convents.

A priest friend once jokingly said to me: "If you keep your vow of poverty, your vow of chastity will take care of itself."

I was raped by a Catholic priest (Guardian)

Irish bishop in Nigeria resigns after scandal (BBC)

Edited to add second link

Former archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor to head papal inquiry into sex abuse in Ireland (Guardian)

Vatican names top-level team to probe Irish church and promises questions on 'help owed to victims'

Vatican names clerical abuse inquiry panel (BBC)

Five senior prelates... are all of Irish descent and have played a leading role in investigating and responding to allegations of sexual abuse and Church mishandling of abuse in their own countries.

Fallout for homosexual aspirants to the priesthood (NY Times):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/nyregion/31gay.html

Priests are just human like all of us.

To be celibated is a pre-requisite for a life-time committment to become a Catholic priest or nun. A tough requirement ?
:-)

It's funny that sexual orientation is any sort of litmus test when the study of cleric abuse cases in the USA showed a correlation between cleric abuse and a prior experience of childhood abuse on the part of the abusive cleric. Better to weed out candidates who were victims of child abuse themselves than to hide behind the smokescreen explanation of homosexuality.

"Better to weed out candidates who were victims of child abuse themselves"

I would suspect they ask that, don't you?

344
Well, maybe they should.

Still, I would be reticent to tell someone that they were not proper priest material simply because they suffered sexual abuse as children. Seems somewhat discriminatory to me, as would denying the priesthood to homosexuals. But yeah, some sort of deeper evaluation and treatment (of the abuse victims) might be prudent.

For the record, I think the homosexuality explanation is a smokescreen. It plays to the false stereotype of homosexuals as pedophilies.

>345 Makifat: But it's a neat way to express disapproval of two "lifestyle choices" at once. Homosexuality is wrong, pedophilia is wrong . . . why not pretend they are the same thing?

Seems somewhat discriminatory to me, as would denying the priesthood to homosexuals. But yeah, some sort of deeper evaluation and treatment (of the abuse victims) might be prudent.

I think this is where I get off the boat on discrimination. I don't think anyone has the right to be a priest. It doesn't shock my conscience to imagine that the church might decide for a variety of reasons--for both the health of the church and of the potential priest--to refuse the priesthood to those who have been sexually abused as children. The priesthood is hard, and involves a psychologically stressful choice--the choice to be celibate. And priests have—or perhaps had—a lot of power and opportunities to abuse it.

I don't think anyone has the right to be a priest.

Not even if God has called them to the priesthood?

But then again, women don't have the right, so why stop there?

But then again, women don't have the right, so why stop there?

I'm not making that case or any other related one.

What does a woman do if she genuinely believes God has called her to the priesthood?

351

Hie herself to a nunnery. Second best is good enough for her...

>348 Makifat: While there is an element of being called by God, there has also always been a second element of being chosen by the community, or perhaps of that calling being tested and ratified by the community. A vestige remains in the ordination ceremony where the ordaining bishop asks, "Do you find him worthy?", and the reply is, "I have enquired amongst the people of God and found him worthy" (or words to that effect - I haven't checked the exact quote).

One can argue about what criteria the community uses (or indeed who constitutes/represents the community), but one cannot claim priesthood solely by virtue of feeling called.

#351

http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

So if someone with the power to ordain ordains a woman, is she a priest? Maybe an excommunicated priest?

I first heard about this from a nun, who seemed to think that the ordination was valid, even if illegal under canon law.

It's as valid as any ordination in any protestant denomination that claims some sort of legitimacy through apostolic succession (not that necessarily matters) but from the site:

our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in the line of unbroken apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.

Plus one would think it would recognized by other denominations that allow female ordination. It may not be recognized by the RC church but I would think it would still be seen as valid in the wider Christian community.

that claims some sort of legitimacy through apostolic succession

I don't think this sort of thing is fully solved by "some sort of." Despite considerable efforts from some, it's clear the Catholic church is going to require anglican defectors to be re-frocked. The ostensible reason lies in changes to the ordination procedure. But the Catholic church never questions orthodox ordination. A catholic ordination of a woman is totally unlike both, though—more Catholic than the others, and far more of a challenge.

Point taken.

Women have been ordained, although they were excommunicated when they failed to repent. The presiding bishop had previously broken with Rome, so it's very complicated. (Can JtF or another make sense of this story?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Seven

358: It's the Catholic Church. Of course it doesn't make sense. They almost never do.

359
Well, it's an internal logic.

>358 margd: Well, with due deference to StormRaven's comment in >359 StormRaven:, and without getting into the argument as to whether ordination of women would be a good thing or not, that particular case probably hinges on the "valid but illicit" issue.

As I understand it, it is possible to act validly but illicitly. For example, a priest who has been suspended from priestly functions but not laicised ("defrocked"), or who performs certain functions in a geographical area where he has not been authorised to do so, can still validly perform the sacraments, ie if he presides at the Eucharist it is still a valid communion, but it is illicit (against Church rules) for him to do so.

The Danube Seven apparently claim that their bishop could validly ordain, even though he was acting illicitly. As the Wikipedia article points out, though, I think their argument falls down because the Church would say that a woman can never be validly ordained. If that bishop had ordained a man it would probably have been valid but illicit - as far as I know, for example, all the Lefebvrist priests and bishops who were recently accepted back into the Church were not required to be re-ordained, even though their ordinations were illicit. However the attempted ordination of a woman is simply not recognised as an ordination under any circumstances - Wikipedia quotes canon law, "Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination" and John Paul II, "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women". I suppose a parallel would be if a bishop tried to ordain an unbaptised man - it would be both invalid and illegal.

So, until a future ecumenical council (Vatican III or IV, maybe?) decides that the Church does have authority to confer priestly ordination on women, that's where we are.

>361 John5918: Beautifully lucid, John; thanks.

> 361 Thanks!

The ordination really seemed to rattle church authorities, or so it seemed from the popular press at the time: a fair bit of angst as they pressured the women to repent. There was also some significance to the use of a boat for the ordination. Maybe the idea was to be outside the authority of a Vatican-allied bishop.

It's interesting to me that pro-ordination activists don't go after the diaconate first. The Catholic church currently forbids women deacons as a matter of canon law, but it hasn't raised the issue to the same level of certainty for the simple reason that it's clear the early church had them.* Among other things, Pliny tortured two of them as part of his investigation into Christianity in Pontus and Paphlagonia (translation). The two were also slaves and, almost certainly, Greek or Paphlagonian, not Jewish. A nicer demonstration that the early Church heeded Paul's formulation couldn't be found:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Being part of a historical Church means, I think, having some respect for how history and doctrine interact. (By contrast, if I may caricature, being a Protestant generally means believing that development and tradition are bunk and only ideas and how very right you are about them matter.) The church will, I predict, eventually discover from its history and from statements like Paul's that women may be priests. But if you care about the result and you understand your church, you'd work toward it step-wise, starting with reinstituting the ancient and authentically Christian practice of female deacons.

*Some debate this but, as with many such issues--whether Jesus had brothers and sisters or, against the plain Greek words, merely "cousins" comes to mind--the facts are fit and arguments made to fit the doctrine. If female ordination weren't a hot issue and the matter were left to historians alone to sift the evidence and make a conclusion, few would doubt the early church had female deacons.

#364 It's interesting to me that pro-ordination activists don't go after the diaconate first.

As someone married to a woman who has always yearned to be a priest in the Catholic Church and who has devoted her life to equiping herself with all the theological and pastoral ministry qualifications and experience available to her, I can tell you the level of frustration and the sense of injustice, linked with a history of half measure appeasements (such as the introduction of Parish Councils; appointment of Parish Workers; establishment of a women's advisory council; etc...), means there is a head of steam and a level of impatience that will not accept any half measures. The people affected by this wish to address the fundamental discrimination that exists.

Your quote from Paul is excellent.

So, what do you think about my contention that being part of a historical, "traditional" church means working with the tool-set that offers?

(By contrast, if I may caricature, being a Protestant generally means believing that development and tradition are bunk and only ideas and how very right you are about them matter.)

Other than family background, I don't really have a dog in the fight between the Catholic Church and its Protestant foils but it should be pointed out that there are so many different kinds of Protestants, and they have so many different ways of approaching how to formulate doctrine, that to say there is any one way that could blanket them all is folly.

That is the approach my wife has been taking, but it hasn't stopped her shouting from the roof tops and writing to the bishops & arch bishops and papers, to make her point.

She has attended the appropriate Church colleges; acquired degrees in theology; qualifications in pastoral ministry and prayer guidance; acquired education on Canon Law; works within the local parish organising and running retreats; established scripture study groups; written papers, letters and a book (Moving on? Catholic Ministry in Ireland; and has just been interviewed for a job as a Parish Pastoral Worker.

She is a close friend of the founder of BASIC (Brothers and Sisters in Christ), and organisation that promotes, from within the Church structure, the ordination of women. http://www.basicministries.com/

Her knowledge of the Church, its laws, and its history, helps her reveal the flaws in the organisation and the injustices that have been perpetrated over the centuries. The "tool-set" available, is flawed, and through the Church's internal mechanisms, which are self auditing, it is not possible to move in the correct direction.

There has to be a renewal within the Church with a focus on the people; not the structure. The Catholic Church as to be renewed by going back to what it was supposed to be, and to follow the example of the early Christian community by becoming community focused.

The tool-set provided by the traditional church is simple a set of tools to protect the organisation. That is why we have such a mess at the moment.

As Cardinal Ratzinger stated in his book on Vatican II, nothing positive can be expected when the laiety has been defined in negative terms; e.g. A lay person is not a priest, not a nun, etc...

One of Shanley's assistants left the Church and was recently ordained as an Old Catholic / ECC priest.

#369
My wife has considered that, and has also had the opportunity of joining the Church of Ireland, but she made a conscious decision to fight for the ordination of women from within the Catholic Church. While she really wants to be a priest she feels it better to work to right the wrong and fix the problem once and for all. I think she knows it won't happen any time soon, but she is still fighting on.

>368 pgmcc: There has to be a renewal within the Church with a focus on the people; not the structure

I couldn't agree more, and my heart goes out to your wife. But I think the priesthood is part of the structure which needs renewing. One could argue that having women priests might be a first step on the road to a more fundamental structural renewal (or a second step, as Tim's comments about the diaconate make sense). On the other hand it might just give a new lease of life to a flawed structure by making superficial changes which relieve the pressure for real change. I'm not convinced that having women priests and bishops in the Anglican church has fundamentally changed their power structure. However I don't expect fundamental renewal to occur in my lifetime, so I'll certainly welcome any small signs of change, while still wondering whether they are just papering over the cracks.

>370 pgmcc:

Without any attempt to offend, your wife might not be the best candidate here. After all, she's not only needs female ordination, she also needs the ordination of married clergy. The latter is, I think, much more likely to come about in the medium-term future, but still.

Deacons can be married, though. Sounds like his wife's interests and marital statue are compatible with that of a deacon. Just not her gender...

Oh, I thought he was saying she wanted to be a priest.

No, you had it right. I just meant that she might be a candidate for your deacon strategy.

I agree that priests will be married before they are female. But I bet the first woman priest will have been a nun.

I'm amazed that with all the heavy lifting today's nuns do, that they are subject to brash, public admonishments by priests, e.g., the hospital administrator, the nuns who supported healthcare, a nun fired with little grace from position as religious director in my parish, etc. Male clergy may suffer, too, but not so publicly, it seems... (Maybe just small sample size!)

I just meant that she might be a candidate for your deacon strategy.

In all seriousness, I don't see it as a strategy. I suspect the church will eventually decide women can be priests, but even if I were whole-hog in favor of it in theory, I'd be very wary of advocating for something so disjunctive with current teaching as female priests. If it's going to happen it needs to happen of itself, as it were, and develop as part of the church's development, which is slower than you might like and presumes that the end result is correctly decided by the church in common, in dialogue with itself and with its traditions, not by you in your anger and impatience. There's a reason the church changes slowly and deliberately--it's the only way it can really know its mind and, I think, the will of God.

That's leaving apart the fact that such a move, absent the slow theological and social evolution that's really needed, would be instant schism. And if there's one process thing catholics ought to believe, it's that you don't split the church just because you think you're right.

I would add female deacons has the distinct advantage of being not a new thing, but a reversion to prior practice. Needless to say, from Sparta to the Tea Party, "return to our roots" is, historically, often really a call for forward motion of some sort. But there you have it.

#368 to #376

As with everything in the world, and Church related, nothing is simple, and many things are intertwined.

Firstly, #371 Tim's comments about the diaconate make sense). On the other hand it might just give a new lease of life to a flawed structure by making superficial changes which relieve the pressure for real change.
This is the point I was making. Allowing women become deacons would only be a delaying action to buy more time.

Secondly, my wife's frustration is not solely focused on the ban on women becoming a priest. She wants to carry out pastoral ministry and does this as best she can within the organisational constraints. While wishing to be a member of the clergy she sees a fundamental need for the Church, i.e. the real Church, the people, to be the focus, not the organisation. She would wish the Church to be more community based with not hierarchical or clerical structure with everyone able to play roles as they need to, as the early Christian Church operated.

Thirdly, Married priests. The Catholic Church has married priests, and not just the ones who got married in secret. When the Anglican Church started ordaining women, a number of married Anglican Priests were taken into the Catholic Church as priests. So yes, there is a precedent for married priests in the Catholic Church. I do not see this as a sign that the authorities will change the celibacy rules any time soon as the whole financial liability issue relating to the spouse and offspring of married priests is a key reason for the celibacy rules staying in place.

Fourthly, my wife does see a rayt of hope in the Catholic Church in Ireland, for two reasons. One is the Dublin Archbishop, Diarmuid Martin http://www.dublindiocese.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68... (whom she interviewed for her book two weeks before he became Archbishop - That helped the sales). He was sent in to Ireland by the Vatican to sort out the whole sex abuse scandal situation. He has stood up against the bishops and seems to be making some headway. At a recent talk he gave to the Knights of St. Columbanus (http://www.knightsofstcolumbanus.ie/home.php) which we attended, he called for the whole faith community within the Catholic Church to help him renew the Church and take it back into the control of the people.
The secon reason for hope, is the groundswell of renewal that she sees in local parishes where people are taking their faith into their own hands and actively participating in initiatives to learn more about scripture, explore their faith, and develop their relationship with God. These people do not want to leave the Catholic Church, but they want the Catholic Church to do what it says on the tin.

The "deacon strategy" would be simply tampering and would be, to use the great cliché, re-arranging the deckchairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Fifthly, and many will be surprised to hear this, she sees hope in some of the actions of Pope Benedict, a person I would not jump to defend on many an occasion, but she does see hope. This is due to several things, including:
- Her education in Canon Law has exposed her to the clerical use of the word, "process". While we have all be frustrated by the time it has taken the Vatican to react to the various scandal revelations, the Vatican kept coming out with the word, "process". My wife said she sees a process in action, but that it is a very slow process. We were all wondering why the Pope didn't just sack all the bishops here in Ireland who were implicated in cover-up activities. The appointment of a group to come into Ireland to carry out a review, is consistent with the "process" my wife has discerned and predicted. She expects the group to do a lot after finishing their "process". I think the term, "due process", is a good term to describe what is meant.

Also, in relation to the Pope, she has been reading many of his writings, and she feels that he is sincere in wanting to sort things out. She has recently been reading his account of Vatican II (hence my earlier quotation) and believes his can be enlightened and means well.

The upshot of all the above comments is that, given that I identify my religion as Roman Catholic - Retired, and am probably more an agnostic if the truth be known, you will all now believe that my wife talks to me a lot about what she has read and thinks. You could be right.

Secondly, my wife's frustration is not solely focused on the ban on women becoming a priest. She wants to carry out pastoral ministry and does this as best she can within the organisational constraints. While wishing to be a member of the clergy she sees a fundamental need for the Church, i.e. the real Church, the people, to be the focus, not the organisation. She would wish the Church to be more community based with not hierarchical or clerical structure with everyone able to play roles as they need to, as the early Christian Church operated.

I can understand frustration with the institutional church. On balance, the church is--in most ways--at an extreme of centralization now that is out of step historically. But even if you chose a more Orthodox model of power--one centered on the bishops--you would scarecly get your wish here. If you had an ecumenical council, with every Catholic bishop in attendance, you would still lose decisively on any proposal to have female priests. Even if you went full-Protestant and cut the bishops out of it, you'd still face a Catholic community that does not want female clergy. You might carry some American and European dioceses, but you would certainly not carry the church. Catholic and Orthodox opinion is that you need a consensus of the church to decide matters of doctrine—to know the will of God. And you would certainly split the church, I think permanently.

So, to get married clergy you'd need to repudiate the most basic principle of church governance. You have to become, in effect, a Protestant.

So, in sum, I can appreciate and perhaps even agree with your goal, as far as it goes. But your methods are, I think, profoundly un-catholic* and, if they meet with any success, destructive of the church.

*Let me add I'm not calling people who argue this "not Catholic" or whatever. The church has always had radicals in it, and will always have them. They are no doubt often very good for the church. But the church has never changed in "radical" ways.

#378 You have to become, in effect, a Protestant.

That is something I have advocated manys a time. A vocation is not easy to live with; especially when it's not your own.

The church has always had radicals in it, and will always have them. I admit, we are glad that the Church does not torture and burn them any more; at least not physically and in the open.

Have you read Q by Luther Blissett (Wu Ming)? It tells the tale of a radical at the time of the Reformation. It is a fascinating tale. I see many of the frustrations that motivated Luther (the Wittenberg one) having modern day parallels. I suppose some of the original ones are still there.

We have excellent discussions in our house about religion. We have a Lutheran from Wisconsin living with us. (My daughter's boyfriend.) He is constantly urging my wife to move towards the Lutheran Church.

377: All of these struggles have been had before. The churches that have adopted these reforms generally go by the name "protestant" these days. It seems like your wife wants to reinvent the wheel in order to remain part of a religious tradition that varies substantially with her ideas about how religion is supposed to function.

#380
There lies the rub!

> 376 I suspect the church will eventually decide women can be priests, ...

I have a feeling you're right, but, I can't help but wonder how such a decision could be justified on any other than purely pragmatic terms.

Since childhood, I've been asking my Catholic friends, male and female, about this issue, and their responses have always been remarkably consistent -- women can't become priests because Jesus chose no female apostles.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

One year after this was written, the Church ruled that this teaching "requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).

Considering all of this, how could the Church possibly reverse itself on this question -- ever?

Oh, I think it would be quite difficult. I give it 200 years, at an absolute minimum. There are, of course, a small number of things taught by councils or popes which have been definitively reversed—and somewhat more where they have been effectively reversed, with some sort of tortured logic why it doesn't qualify as a reversal.

I don't think the reversal could possibly take place until every Catholic bishop feels it's wrong—"silly history wrong"—in their bones, the way they all now feel about, say, burning heretics or papal and conciliar assertions that such and such a group were to be enslaved, if captured. If that point ever arrives, it won't be soon.

So the church can't be wrong on the important shit, and if the church was found to be wrong, then obviously the shit wasn't that important to begin with.

Ok, then.

The church is starting to sound suspiciously like my father.

The Church cannor err on a fundamental claim of faith or morals. Or at least such is what the Church itself asserts and all informed Catholics believe. Thus, if it asserts that claim C is such a claim, and C is in fact being put forward by the Church, as the Church, then C will never be reversed. For the Church and for Catholics if someone purported to come up with evidence for such a reversal, then logically it could not have ocurred in the way alleged--either the Church never made the claim, or it didn't reverse it, or it is not a fundamental claim of faith or morals.

And we have here, laid out in fairly good detail, one of the many reasons why the Catholic Church is doomed to eventual irrelevance.

>384 oakes:

I'd be interested in how long the limiting formulation "faith and morals" has been around and whether it has the status of an infallible limitation. The millenial-long, traditional definition has been far simpler, and far stronger: an ecumenical council either has never (most Orthodox) or can never (Catholics) err. To this the Catholic church eventually added/discovered/confirmed—notably through a council—an overlapping and confirming authority to the pope acting ex cathedra.

You're certainly right that "logically," if one accepts this, there can never be contradiction. So, if there seems to be contraction, some element was not in fact valid or in place or whatever. So if an ecumenical council reverses another ecumenical council--as seemed to happen at Chalcedon--the former wasn't really an ecumenical council. This is also how Latin Mass zealots arrive at Sedevacantism--since Vatican I was right and Vatican II was wrong, the Vatican-II-and-after Popes aren't Popes. The logic of personal certainty combined with institutional inerrancy is very seductive.

As a matter of history and real-world interpretation, there are certainly problems. There are lots of purported examples, of course. For my money, the best are the simplest. For example, the Third Ecumenical Council absolutely forbid even future councils from changing the Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed—and went so far as to mention additions and subtractions of any kind. So, logically, the Catholic Church now asserts this prohibition was not violated when local Spanish councils added the filioque clause and it spread around the West such that, by the Schism, all believed it to be original and the Pope himself accused the Patriarch of Constantinople of heretically omitting the clause!

Catholics today argue the change was explanatory somehow, and that's allowed--it's not really a change at all. Orthodox argue that a straight reading of both history and the text indicates such an addition was entirely wrong, and was done in zeal and confirmed in ignorance. I'm afraid the Orthodox have the better case here. That is, until I realize that, logically, I must be wrong--either that or half the popes weren't popes and half the councils not councils, or, somehow the creed Christians recite so frequently is somehow not a core piece of the faith. All scary thoughts, I'm afraid.

I believe the phrase de fide vel moribus, as to whose precise meanings there is occasional debate, originates with Pastor Aeternus, though I admit it may very well have been plucked from elsewhere and given more import, or used in an earlier formulation that did not specify the magisterium's "how".

It's as if the Church or some Catholics, or whatever are too hung up on being logical.

I don't think anyone here's accused them of that.

That every word of every Council is infallible is not the position of the Church or faithful Catholics

This is an interesting point. Certainly the Church thought so this was exactly so for a long, long time--at least 1,000 years. The Orthodox church still believes it, along--in some way--with most Protestants.

To the degree it's no longer true, I think it came for two reason:

1. Modern (ie., post-schism) council documents are much longer now than before, and much less pithy. Early councils mostly stuck to a straightforward legal structure--setting up and confirming institutional rules, denouncing specific errors and proclaiming specific truths. On paper, they are generally a few pages long. More recent councils have generated increasingly lengthy documents, full of setup, explanation, reasoning, hortatory noodling, footnotes and so forth.

The contrast is striking. I didn't do a full word count, but from an quick one, it seems none of the assembled canons from the first eight councils are longer than the shortest of the sixteen official documents from Vatican II.

2. The Catholic Church went through some very fierce gyrations involving the relationships between national governments, the pope (often popes) and councils. The gyrations back and forth--for example between the anti-papal conciliarism of the Council of Constance and the papal supremacy of the Fifth Lateran Council--produced all lot of documents that simply don't cohere as tightly as well as the earlier ones, and included lots of specific political content which, even if they were all good and moral, clearly involve questions more of policy than the traditional purview of councils, the faith.

I don't think there's any particular problem here, but it's important to recognize the difference, and not to retroject hermaneutical principles one might apply to modern councils to that of ancient ones. They call, I think, for different principles. To apply a strict "everything's true" standard to every council, including the modern ones, would be impossible. But it would equally wrong to apply a distaste for Vatican II's nice thoughts about Islam to, say, the spare and definitive words of the Nicene/Constantinopiltan creed.

by Sedevacantists is meant actual Sedevacantists

Yes, that's what I meant. It was not a dig at those who are not sedevacantists. Sedevacantism is, however and in part, the logical result of believing too strongly in a puerile logic, and too little in the Holy Spirit.

The "logically" was entirely intentional. If your interpretive principle is as described in 384, you've given up a reasonable attempt at hermaneutics for the mental mechanisms of an autistic. Your "logic" offers no guidance and answers no questions--it is the prose of Pope's "One truth is clear, whatever is, is right."

Logic is, of course, non-optional. That does not mean that understanding the Christian faith is like that Star Trek episode where Spock plays chess with the computer over and over, beating it and therefore proving the "infallible" computer had been tampered with.

Following this sort of logic, the Catholic church painted itself into a corner, and must now assert the actual words of the universal Christian creed weren't really a "matter of faith" at all—a very strange thing to say about what is surely one of the core elements of the faith! If such a notion were applied generally, what conciliar statement wouldn't be eligible for reversal?

A more reasonable explanation--and one with the virtue of being supported by abundant textual evidence, not after-the-fact logic games--is that the creed was changed and the change spread and was (until recently) defended, in ignorance and zeal by good Christians trying to protect and spread the faith against true heretics. The world is imperfect, ignorance is real, and even in seeming "matters of faith" errors are, in fact, possible.

Put another way, logic rules the world. But there is a reason Spock isn't captain.

you've given up a reasonable attempt at intelligent hermaneutics for that of an autistic.

Watch yourself, there...

re # 392 and following

>> "That every word of every Council is infallible is not the position of the Church or faithful Catholics."

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church claims infallibility ONLY for ex-cathedra proclamations. In it's whole history there has only been two ex-cathedra proclamations, ironically both about the Virgin Mary (i.e. the Doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception). Council documents, encyclicals, et al, are, however, regarded as part of the Magisterium (the "fidei depositum") of the Church and consequently given a status close to infallibility but not ex-cathedra.

>395 bookmonk8888:

Catechism 891:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Current rules are that only the Pope can call an ecumenical council, and is its head. This was not, however, the rule historically— the pope didn't convene or even attend most of the early ones—and therefore can't be a dogmatic necessity. The Catechism describes the necessity as the pope "confirming... or at least recognizing" the council as ecumenical.

The Orthodox hold that the first seven councils were ecumenical and infallible. There is some debate on what, exactly, makes them infallible. But the fact is not disputed and, for the Orthodox, it is the only source of infallibility in the Church. (See http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils)

> 396

In an echo of Mark Twain, I believe that what you say is true -- mostly! In my message, unfortunately, I didn't make it clear I was speaking about papal infallibility as invested in the pope independent of conciliar declarations. I was about to mention about the infallibility attributed to Councils (as you quote from the CCC "The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when - - - ") but -- well, haste.

The following two quotes, I think, are accurate -- mostly! They are from Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source for scholarship).

1. >>It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.
Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

2. >>The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list. The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

****************

I would also like to mention that Catholic catechisms are comparatively recent. M. Luther was the first to publish one and, in response, the Council of Trent published the CCC in 1566. Also, papal infallibility, while believed in for many previous centuries, was only formally defined as a doctrine in the 1st Vatican Council, 1870.
And yes, Councils were not always convened by popes. The 1st Council of Nicaea, for instance, was convened by the Emperor Constantine.
A final thought: Catholic doctrine evolves - see Cardinal Newman's seminal book "The Development of Doctrine"

>>395 bookmonk8888:-397 No real disagreement. Let me add a quote from Vatican II - Lumen Gentium #25:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

>390 oakes: liberals have used an attachment to the so-called "Latin Mass" as a kind of stick to beat faithful Catholics

Funnily enough many "liberals" are also "faithful Catholics", and vice versa. The two are not mutually exclusive.

> 390 et al

Strictly it in not the Latin Mass that is no longer the official rite of the Catholic Church. It is the Tridentine Mass. The post-conciliar rite can be celebrated in any church in Latin (as in the vernacular of any country). Some groups insist on using the Tridentine Mass e.g. The Society of Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. In 1988 Pope John Paul II declared that this society had incurred automatic excommunication, not because of their use of the Tridentine rite but because of their practice of consecrating bishops. The present Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication following an expression of repentance by the Society for this practice.
It is commonly believed that the actor Mel Gibson is a member of this Society but it appears he is even more radical.

edited because of a typo

>400 oakes:

You do not, of course, actually address any points made, except repeating logical truisms. I presume this is because you don't know and/or don't care about the substance of these conversations--actual things, like the filioque clause or the history of church councils, conciliar documents, the basis of papal authority, etc.

If church infallibility really works as you clearly believe it does, I suppose this is your right. You can stop your ears and avoid all attempts at independent understanding, analysis and judgement of these topics with a clear conscience. But it's unclear why anyone should care what you say on these topics. The church is the authority, but although it might not need to, the church makes carefully reasoned, factually based and intellectually credible arguments in support of its doctrinal positions, even if it then declares them true. You do not.

judgement (sic)

FYI, judgement is a perfectly legitimate alternative spelling of the word judgment. There is no need to (sic) the spelling.

404: You're not alone. My first job out of law school I worked for a federal judge. I wrote some material up for him using the spelling "judgement", which he tagged as incorrect. Another judge who had the adjoining chambers disagreed. We consulted the OED. It turns out, both spellings are correct.

But since I worked for the judge who preferred "judgment" to "judgement", I used his preferred spelling for the remainder of my term working for him.

I believe it's mostly a Brit/US thing, with the Brits including the second "e" in judgment. But it's common enough to find either spelling in the US that my dictionary doesn't label the spelling "Brit"--though "judgment" is the primary spelling.

Then why can't we choose managment? Or why isn't it judgemeant, since a judgment (by any name) is obviously what the judge meant?

407: Some words have acceptable alternative spellings. Others don't. That's just the way spelling is.

408 I grew up in Ireland and learned spelling from the Oxford Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is very different. It drives me crazy when MS Word corrects me so often. I know "when in Rome do what the Romans do". And I try my best to conform. I was good at spelling (OED) and find MW so very different. Thank God for spell-checker programs.

In Canada, I believe, one can use either spelling so long as one is consistent in an article etc.

BTW How did we get so OT from "The German sex scandal and the Pope".

Wandering away from the topic is a time-honored (or time-honoured) LT tradition!

>410 ejj1955:

Amen!

A different scandal: Vatican cardinal faces corruption inquiry over Rome property deals (Guardian)

>412 John5918:

What's new? Property has always been important to the Vatican. It is said that one of the reasons for compulsory celibacy is the fear that some church property could be lost due to inheritance.

There was a humorous event some years back when it was discovered that one of the companies in which the Vatican had investments actually manufactured condoms as one of it's products.

On the other hand, Pope John XXIII had one of his miters, bedecked with expensive jewels, sold and the proceeds given to the poor.

Belgian Catholic offices raided in sex abuse probe (BBC)

Belgian authorities have raided the headquarters of the Belgian Catholic Church during an investigation into child sex abuse claims.

A spokesman for the Brussels prosecutors' office confirmed that the palace of the Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels had been sealed off.

Police have also raided the home of retired Archbishop Godfried Danneels...

Catholic headquarters in Belgium focus of police raids in sex abuse cases (Guardian)

Vatican Criticizes Raid on Belgian Church Offices (NYT)

From above (#415) link:

"The Vatican expressed “shock” on Friday at the raid on Thursday by the Belgian police of church offices in their search for hidden evidence of child sex abuse by priests."

Of course. What's new? Denial, cover-ups etc.

Vatican says Belgium raids 'worse than Communist era' (BBC)

The Vatican has stepped up its criticism of raids by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse...

The Vatican said the raids had led to the "violation of confidentiality of precisely those victims for whom the raids were carried out".

417: At this point, the Vatican has no credibility.

>418 StormRaven: I think you're right, StormRaven. It could be said that statements from the Vatican are actually undermining the good work that many national bishops' conferences are doing to clear up the legacy of sex abuse.

419: I have to wonder if this sort of clueless response by the Vatican is damaging Catholicism specifically, Christianity more generally, and religion as a whole even more generally.

>418 StormRaven: to 420

Despite the good work that many priests, nuns, and lay people are doing at the grass roots level in Third World. I read an article giving examples of this in the NY Times by Nicholas Krystof. I reckon these people are so busy they don't have time to address the scandals.

>421 bookmonk8888: bookmonk, that article by Nicholas Kristoff is referenced somewhere in this thread or a similar one. It speaks of the daily reality and lived experience of Church in many parts of the world.

Another NYT article: Abuse Loosens Church’s Culture of Silence in Italy

Finally, the secular sword strikes back. The Church's response descends into lunacy.

"In a message to the head of the Belgian bishops' conference, Monsignor André-Joseph Léonard, the pontiff condemned the raids and offered his support to the bishops "in this sad moment"....Léonard condemned the raid as being inspired by "crime novels and the Da Vinci Code". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/27/pope-causes-outrage-over-condemnatio...

Ok, it's all Dan Brown's fault. I can get behind that.

The latest:

Majority Catholic Supreme Court Allows Vatican-Sex Abuse Case To Move Forward‏

>424 Makifat: (Makifat)

What a great historian - Dan Brown. Should be on every school's curriculum. Probably is in Texas. :)

Belgium Church abuse panel quits in protest at raids (BBC)

A Catholic Church-backed commission of inquiry into clerical sexual abuse in Belgium has announced it is shutting down in protest at police raids.

Commission head Peter Adriaenssens said the commission had been used as "bait" by state prosecutors...

Many of the files removed contained information from alleged abuse victims who had spoken in confidence.

Mr Adriaenssens, a child psychiatrist who only took over eight weeks ago, expressed concern at what could have motivated the authorities.

"They could only act in that way with the sentiment that we were in the wrong or that we were trying to conceal the cases," he said.

"This while I made a point of working in complete transparency..."

"I'm mostly shocked for all these people who gave us their trust," said Mr Adriaenssens...

He added that people who had spoken to the commission in confidence were "panicking".

"We received e-mails, telephone calls in the past few hours from people who are panicking about what will happen with their private details," he said

"Will their parents find out? Will they read their story in the newspapers? Will their spouse, who wasn't really aware, now find out via the media or the justice department?"

This sounds like a complete mess. I understand the concern that some embarrassing details regarding victims' complaints could leak out, but I can also understand the distrust in allowing the matter to be "investigated" solely by a Church appointed commission.

Ideally, the Church and the local authorities would have been working cooperatively on the investigation.

Still, the biggest irony is the statement "I'm mostly shocked for all these people who gave us their trust...." Nice to know that the Church is now so hand-wringingly concerned about the emotional state of the victims.

The Church should be advising victims to speak directly to police authorities as well as discussing matters with a special commission whose report will be locked up in a Vatican vault for centuries lest Dan Brown make a mess of another conspiratorial narrative plot. I don't see why the Church views itself as a credible intermediary between the victims and cleric sex abusers.

>429 theoria: I can't speak for Belgium, but in many countries it is now normal practice for the Church to advise complainants to speak to the civil authorities.

I think the Church (or many within the Church) views itself as a credible intermediary because a large number (most? but obviously not all) of those now in authority are as horrified by the abuse as anyone. They have already set up quite credible mechanisms to minimise the possibility of it happening again, and they are doing their best to deal with past cases. This commission was arguably a genuine attempt to do so. However the Church is being a bit naive if it expects people in general to find it credible, just as it's often not considered credible when a government or a police force investigates itself.

Belgian officials: Vatican concerns 'over the top' (NCR)

Responding to Rome's strong reaction, Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere stressed the independence of the country's judiciary and its freedom to investigate.

“(There are)very elementary principles of having a separation of powers and accepting that the judiciary has to do its work,”

And on clerical sex abuse in the USA: Parish money part of abuse settlement, judge rules (NCR)

#430 (johnthefireman)

" - - -are as horrified - - -". Looks lie some are horNified :)

German Bishop Walter Mixa 'could return to work' (BBC)

A German bishop who resigned after claims he hit children could be allowed to return to work, it has emerged...

Bishop Mixa appears to have received much more lenient treatment from the Pope than has been proposed by church authorities in many other countries.

In the United States, Britain, Ireland and Belgium a zero tolerance policy is now being applied in all cases of sexual misconduct by clergy.

I don't know the full details, but isn't there a difference between striking a child and molesting one? Perhaps the church should have a "zero tolerance" policy for both—although I wouldn't say so—but they are different, and, to my knowledge, the zero-tolerance policy was about sexual abuse.

The BBC article does add, fresh allegations were made in the press of sexual misconduct and alcoholism, but doesn't say whether the "sexual misconduct" was with children or adults.

But you're right to point out the difference. When I was growing up in UK corporal punishment was the norm in schools and homes, religious or otherwise, so much of the adult population would have struck a child at some point, all perfectly legal.

>430 John5918: Another example of a national Catholic Church which automatically collaborates with civil authorities is Kenya:

Under no circumstances should the grave matter of sexual abuse of children be abated in one way or another. Each diocese is required to come up with child protection policies that will have direct involvement and collaboration with civil societies in criminal cases such as rape and paedophilia as stipulated by both canonical and civil legislation.

As a church we cannot tolerate any act that harms and violates the rights, the dignity and integrity of any person perpetuated by any, member of the clergy. A cleric accused of any moral impropriety of sexual nature, especially the abuse of minors will attract the appropriate penalties

John Cardinal Njue, Chairman, Kenya Episcopal Conference (KEC), June 30, 2010, while presenting new General Guidelines on Priestly Discipline and Rule of Life (I don't have a link to this, only an e-mail).

>435 John5918:

Right. And those kids grew up to be fine, I suspect. Not so much the ones who were molested...

Belgium a 'perfect storm' on sex abuse crisis (NCR)

Church Office Failed to Act on Abuse Scandal (NYT)

In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly...

But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.

The Vatican took action only after bishops from English-speaking nations became so concerned about resistance from top church officials that the Vatican convened a secret meeting to hear their complaints — an extraordinary example of prelates from across the globe collectively pressing their superiors for reform, and one that had not previously been revealed.

And the policy that resulted from that meeting, in contrast to the way it has been described by the Vatican, was not a sharp break with past practices. It was mainly a belated reaffirmation of longstanding church procedures that at least one bishop attending the meeting argued had been ignored for too long...

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, an outspoken auxiliary bishop emeritus from Sydney, Australia, who attended the secret meeting in 2000, said that despite numerous warnings, top Vatican officials, including Benedict, took far longer to wake up to the abuse problems than many local bishops did.

“Why did the Vatican end up so far behind the bishops out on the front line, who with all their faults, did change — they did develop,” he said. “Why was the Vatican so many years behind?”

For UK Trip, BBC Plans Papal "Trial" (Whispers in the Loggia blog)

The BBC is planning a 90-minute drama which will take as its premise what would happen if the Pope were to go on trial for covering up sex abuse perpetrated by priests.

A BBC spokesman denied any knowledge of the project...

Belgian child sex abuse police probe death threats (BBC)

Police investigating claims of child abuse by Belgian clergy have told the BBC they are probing death threats against witnesses and magistrates.

Thus lending credibility to Dan Brown after all?

Could be interesting if the Pope decides to visit Belgium.

...or if the next Pope is an albino.

Albinogensians.

Albino was Pope back in 1978.

#446

Who was found dead, probably murdered by the Albigensians who were undoubtedly all Albinos. After all Dan Brown has the vicious albino in his great historical book. Would that we had more great historians like Brown.

All praise to Brown!
All praise to Brown!..

edited to add the sarcasticon

Unfortunately, the history of the Church shows evidence of episodes that would make Brown (or Ian Fleming) envious.

For example, upon his coronation in 1198, Pope Innocent III proclaimed himself rex regum:

I am he to whom Jesus said, 'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and everything that you shall bind up on earth shall be bound up in heaven. See then this servant who rules over the entire family; he is the vicar of Jesus Christ and the successor of Saint Peter. He stands halfway between God and man, smaller than God, greater than man'

Georges Duby, The Age of The Cathedrals: Art and Society 980-1420, 137.

Vatican set to issue changes in sex abuse rules (NCR)

#449 (theoria)

The statement you give from Pope Innocent 111 is still the official position of the Catholic Church.

Well, if it's worked for the better part of a thousand years . . .

>451 bookmonk8888: bookmonk, I don't think that's correct. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and he is first amongst equals in the college of bishops. The magisterium of the Church is exercised through the pope and the college of bishops together, and only in very rare cases by him alone ex cathedra. Now in practice the papacy and the Vatican Curia have aggregated a lot of power and authority to themselves, but I'm not convinced that this is "official".

#453

"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and everything that you shall bind up on earth shall be bound up in heaven".

Isn't this text used by the Catholic Church to refer to the Pope? Known as the "Power of the Keys" -- the Pope is seen as the Vicar of Christ on earth, although I fully agree that most of the "binding" is done by the Curia.

repetition of ugly details

Pesky things, facts.

>454 bookmonk8888: That is indeed a foundational text for the papacy, but since then it has been the subject of 2,000 years of praxis, theological reflection and ecumenical councils, so I think the reality is a little more complex.

A recent talk by a bishop in Africa, which I quote at length, highlights some of the ongoing reflection. He reflects on what has been happening in the Church especially since Pope John Paul II became the Bishop of Rome and up till today - and that is “restorationism”, the carefully planned dismantling of the theology, ecclesiology, pastoral vision, indeed the “opening of the windows” of Vatican II – in order to “restore” a previous, or more controllable model of Church through an increasingly centralised power structure; a structure which now controls everything in the life of the Church through a network of Vatican Congregations led by Cardinals who ensure strict compliance with what is deemed by them to be “orthodox”...

Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, i.e. a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the Church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the Bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole Church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the Pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras.

Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various “labels” stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with “internal assent” by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theological or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the Church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the “deposit of the faith” to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas...

The rise of conservative groups and organisations in the Church over the past 40 years and more, which attract significant numbers of adherents, has led to a phenomenon which I find difficult to deal with, viz. an inward looking Church, fearful of if not antagonistic towards a secularist world with its concomitant danger of relativism especially in terms of truth and morality – frequently referred to by Pope Benedict XVI; a Church which gives an impression of “retreating behind the wagons”, and relying on a strong central authority to ensure unity through uniformity in belief and praxis in the face of such dangers...

The bishop then reviews some of Catholic Social Teaching which he views as One of the truly significant contributions of the Church to the building up of a world in which people and communities can live in peace and dignity, which the Church must apply to itself and which includes the principle of subsidiarity, then continues:

Applied to the Church, the principle of subsidiarity requires of its leadership to actively promote and encourage participation, personal responsibility and effective engagement by everyone in terms of their particular calling and ministry in the Church and world according to their opportunities and gifts.

However, I think that today we have a leadership in the Church which actually undermines the very notion of subsidiarity; where the minutiae of Church life and praxis “at the lower level” are subject to examination and authentication being given by the “higher level”, in fact the highest level... where one of the key Vatican II principles, collegiality in decision-making, is virtually non-existent. The eminent emeritus Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Franz König, wrote the following in 1999 – almost 35 years after Vatican II: “In fact, however, de facto and not de jure, intentionally or unintentionally, the curial authorities working in conjunction with the Pope have appropriated the tasks of the episcopal college. It is they who now carry out almost all of them” (“My Vision of the Church of the Future”, The Tablet, March 27, 1999, p. 434).

What compounds this, for me, is the mystique which has in increasing measure surrounded the person of the Pope in the last 30 years, such that any hint of critique or questioning of his policies, his way of thinking, his exercise of authority etc. is equated with disloyalty. There is more than a perception, because of this mystique, that unquestioning obedience by the faithful to the Pope is required and is a sign of the ethos and fidelity of a true Catholic. When the Pope’s authority is then intentionally extended to the Vatican Curia, there exists a real possibility that unquestioning obedience to very human decisions about a whole range of issues by the Curial Departments and Cardinals also becomes a mark of one’s fidelity as a Catholic, and anything less is interpreted as being disloyal to the Pope who is charged with steering the bark of Peter.

It has become more and more difficult over the past years, therefore, for the College of Bishops as a whole, or in a particular territory, to exercise their theologically-based servant leadership to discern appropriate responses to their particular socio-economic, cultural, liturgical, spiritual and other pastoral realities and needs; much less to disagree with or seek alternatives to policies and decisions taken in Rome... And, taking this further, when an individual bishop takes issue with something, especially in public, the impression or judgement will be that he is “breaking ranks” with the other bishops and will only cause confusion to the lay faithful – so it is said - because it will appear that the Bishops are not united in their teaching and leadership role. The pressure, therefore, to conform.

What we should have, in my view, is a Church where the leadership recognises and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local Church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the Church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the believing, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk. The Church could be enriched as a result through a diversity which truly integrates socio-cultural values and insights into a living and developing faith, together with a discernment of how such diversity can promote unity in the Church – and not, therefore, require uniformity to be truly authentic.

Diversity in living and praxis, as an expression of the principle of subsidiarity, has been taken away from the local Churches everywhere by the centralisation of decision-making at the level of the Vatican. In addition, orthodoxy is more and more identified with conservative opinions and outlook, with the corresponding judgement that what is perceived to be “liberal” is both suspect and not orthodox, and therefore to be rejected as a danger to the faith of the people.

He ends with a quote from none other than Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, on the primacy of conscience, yes, even over the pope:

“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority." (Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967)

Edited to add that this talk is now online: South Africa: Bishop Dowling reflects on trends in the Church

>458 oakes: I'm not sure that the bishop is speaking about doctrines so much as power structures and leadership strategies.

See An Essay on the Development of Christian doctrineby Cardinal Newman. He certainly believed that doctrine could change, at least in the sense of developing.

It is also online at http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Third Lateran Council 1179

Canon 23. Although the Apostles says that we should pay greater honour to our weaker members, certain ecclesiastics, seeking what is their own and not the things of Jesus Christ, do not allow lepers, who cannot dwell with the healthy or come to church with others, to have their own churches and cemeteries or to be helped by the ministry of their own priests. Since it is recognized that this is far from christian piety, we decree, in accordance with apostolic charity, that wherever so many are gathered together under a common way of life that they are able to establish a church for themselves with a cemetery and rejoice in their own priest, they should be allowed to have them without contradiction. Let them take care, however, not to harm in any way the parochial rights of established churches. For we do not wish that what is granted them on the score of piety should result in harm to others. We also declare that they should not be compelled to pay tithes for their gardens or the pasture of animals.

Canon 26. Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have christian servants in their houses, either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.

Fourth Lateran Council 1215

Canon 68. In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses Numbers 15:37-41, that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Hey Tim, if you're throwing a party and you want the Canadians to leave, you know how you get them to go home?

God doesn't work that way.

Of course God doesn't. Fallible institutions run by humans on the other hand, do.

>461 theoria:

The point Oakes is making is that doctrine doesn't change. By this we know—without bothering to inform ourselves—that the church said the same things in the past, at least about doctrine. And we know—against without reflection—that whatever doctrine it expounds in the future shall be true and not at variance with the past. Thus is the core content of Christianity reduced to "Whatever is, is right."

This is fine as far as it goes, but it should provide a contemporary Catholic conservative with much in the way of solace, for little they fervently believe to be constant holds up to the past-is-present test.

For example, nothing in doctrine gives the Pope any power over the appointment of bishops, and nothing would prevent some Catholic civil leader from appointing them all himself, and calling ecumenical councils that made sweeping changes in church structure, creeds, liturgy and even the canon—all without the participation of Rome. This leader—president Biden, perhaps?—could call a half-dozen of them in a row. And if Rome steadfastly opposes something in their canons, don't fret, for, as with the redrawing of the patriarchates, Rome will come around, even 500 years later, and we will know it was fine all along. Heck, Rome doesn't even need a full copy of whatever these councils decide, as was evidently the case with some early councils. All this was, so, logically, it presents no doctrinal problems to return to it.

We can return to a lot of other stuff too, of course. Married clergy, of course, and female deacons. But it can do far more. The church could force Jews into ghettos, revive slavery, hold, buy and sell thousands of slaves, stamp out democracy, ban books, rule territories of any size, wage war, spit the heads of military enemies around the Vatican, and torture and kill witches, heretics and religious dissidents by the hundreds of thousands. The Church could pitch the world into a Hellish, medieval dystopia without the slightest doctrinal objection. Female priests? Gay civil marriage? Heretics—those are impossible!

Not at all. Why do you accuse me of that? What is with you?

Because it's the logic you keep repeating. Doctrine can't change. If it changes, it wasn't doctrine. Why on earth would you need to investigate anything? You already know the answer.

And so if you defend the principle that Church doctrine cannot change, against those who say or imply that it can, you must advocate, or sympathize with, or at least not oppose herding Jews into ghettos, banning books, waging war to spit military enemies on spears around the Vatican, and so on and on.

No, on the contrary. I'm sure you oppose all of those things. All faithful Catholics today do. Indeed, faithful Catholics were instrumental in changing the church on those topics—coming to the conclusion that the church supported monstrous things, but that something—some higher force or principle or fidelity to its core truth—moved it to change. Often, the Church moved the rest of the world there. To me, it seems the Holy Spirit has lead the church, and the world, to ever deeper understanding and love.

However, your model of doctrine requires you believe that doctrine allows all those. What it doesn't allow are these other things, things that seem far less consequential. Doctrine allows truly extreme organizational transformations, but not female priests. And the church may engage in what any Catholic, or indeed any human today, would regard as true horrors against human dignity, natural law and the family. But you already know it will forever forbid gay civil marriage—or gay adoption, right?

This is a very peculiar Holy Spirit indeed. After 2,000 years of constant motion toward love and the rejection or at least reinterpretation of what, at earlier times, seemed settled issues, it now stops dead in its tracks.

You'd perhaps do me a favor, and back up your accusations that I am slandering you, if you went through my lists of horrors and innovations and put a little check by what doctrine allows and what it will forever prohibit. If your tally differs from what I have described as yours, why? You have previously advanced the notion that slavery is not an intrinsic evil, but—I believe I'm not putting words in your mouth—that gay sex is. Same logic for the rest, or different?

>467 oakes: (oakesspalding)

The question of intrinsic evil is an interesting one. I have no doubt there are many things that are intrinsically evil. But to claim, as the Catholic Church does, that birth control is intrinsically evil -- well, put simply, I just don't agree. Take, for instance, the AIDS epidemic in Africa where a husband comes home infected with AIDS and cannot use a condom. I think irresponsible spreading of AIDS might be intrinsically evil.
There was a very unusual event in the Congo some years ago where the Vatican ordered the nuns there to use the pill because of the great danger of rape. I regard rape as intrinsically evil but one can hardly say that using the pill is pro-Life, in the sense in which it is usually understood. I wonder why the Church doesn't apply the same principle to married women in Africa.
And the Catholic Church rightly regards pedophilia as intrinsically evil and yet failed miserably to protect victims. My brother in Ireland committed suicide after he was sexually abused by a priest during his teen years. The priest can receive absolution by simply walking into a Confession box but my brother is condemned to hell for all eternity!
I respect your beliefs and your right to believe. I'm not trying to convert you to my beliefs. But from being a staunch Irish Catholic myself, my beliefs have changed a lot, not because of my brother's suicide but from studying theology.

>468 bookmonk8888: bookmonk, the bishop whom I quote in >457 John5918: has publicly advocated the use of condoms in the HIV/AIDS situation which you mention, and many others would advocate it privately but not publicly. He argues that the Church's opposition to birth control is to promote life, and that it cannot be the intention of the Church to promote death, hence the use of a condom by an HIV-discordant married couple is in line with the Church's intention.

2. Can you substantiate your historical claim about nuns being asked by the Church to use the pill? That sounds very odd to me. I'm not arguing, only asking.

Okay.

Church doctrine, it seems, is mutable after all. Unsurprising, since it is just crap people made up.

>471 StormRaven: Thanks, StormRaven, for tracking that down - I had a brief google but couldn't find it. The argument is not dissimilar to the bishop's argument mentioned in >470 John5918: - that the Church's position on artificial contraception has a reason (or intent), and that there may be situations where artificial contraception can be used because it is not intended to contravene that reason/intent. It's also interesting to read in the article that this is quite a "conservative" theological argument, ie it doesn't seek to challenge the Church's basic position on artificial contraception, merely to interpret it in the light of particular circumstances.

But such a position is not amenable to sound-bite sort of posts. Nor does it sound very good to modern secular ears.

Ah, "secular ears." Perhaps you don't realize that the defense of slavery doesn't sound very good to modern religious ears either. Ditto the rest of the list you won't engage with. There is something truly shocking about the idea that the Church can acommodate chattel slavery and sticking Jews in Ghettos, and that it cannot discover these violations of Christian charity went to the very core of Christian faith, but shall never move on gay marriage, birth control and so forth.

Let me, however, ask you this simple question: The church made any number of pronouncements on the morality of slavery that seemed at the time to be authoritative on issues of mores. A defender of slavery would have had his pick of pro-slavery texts from every level of church authority. And no faithful Christian of AD 400 could have imagined Christians the world over would condemn it as among the worst insults to Christian love imaginable. In the traditional formulation, the church had always and everywhere taught that slavery was licit.

So, do you acknowledge that, while doctine may not change, the Church may come around to realizing, on the topic of homosexuality, the doctrine was quite other than what you, in AD 2010, believe it to be?

The Vatican shoots itself in the foot again: Vatican Rules: Ordaining Women Priests a Crime Like Sex Abuse of Children (Politics Daily)

New rules the Vatican is expected to issue soon on penalties for priests who sexually abuse children will also put the ordaining of women in the same category of the most serious crimes under church law.

Church sources told Catholic News Service that the new "norms," as the policies are called, will include the "attempted ordination of women" among the list of most serious crimes, or what are known as "delicta graviora"...

"Quite frankly, it is an outrage to pair the two, a complete injustice to connect the aspirations of some women among the baptized to ordained ministry with what are some of the worst crimes that can be committed against the least of Christ's members," U.S. Catholic editor Bryan Cones wrote at the monthly magazine's web site in a blast that appears to echo the views of many.

#473

The Southern slave owners, including Catholic ones, constantly invoked the Bible to justify their practice. There is more in the Old Testament (even justifying sex-slavery) than the New Testament about slavery. Paul either contradicts himself or is conflicted by the issue.

On the one hand he says the following:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

On the other hand he says the following where he uses the phrase "bond or free":

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Here is an interesting cut&paste from the Internet:

"Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery

1. For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5. No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
7. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources."

*******************
P.S. I had the distinction of having one of my articles (about N. Ireland) quoted favorable by Avery Dulles in the years before he became a Cardinal.

Or whatever.

“Development or Reversal?,” a review of A Church That Can and Cannot Change.

Three thoughts:

1. There's a deep ignorance of history going on in much of this. Maybe I'll try that in my next post, starting with the notion that the papacy is to be credited with decrying slave merchants—actually a trope of ancient though, philosophical and not.

2. In speaking of Catholic development one should remember that the Church begins in an act of extremely disjunctive "change," based on reasoning from deeper moral principles, namely the teaching of Jesus himself, and of the early church.

For example, the Bible instructs Jews to stone prostitutes, and stone them they did. Jesus famously called off one such event. I suppose one could say that his teaching was merely development, not change, since he didn't scream "The Bible is wrong!" Rather, as often happens in Jesus' teaching, he skips over a narrow provision of Jewish Law in favor of a higher and more general principle--in this case, that none are without sin. Perhaps we could say that, although Jesus developed moral theology, in fact he also affirmed that there was nothing intrinsically evil about a crazed mob torturing to death some poor woman who had nothing left to sell but her body.

Or we could man up and recognize Jesus was saying something rather stronger than that. It's worth adding that, logically, Jesus' words were a non sequitur to the issue at hand. Morally they are a life-changing realization.

Similarly, the Early Church abolished the Law.* A very long list could be made of things in the Law that seem pretty terrible. For example, how many Christians would feel okay keeping illegitimate offspring from full religious worship and participation for ten generations, as was practiced then and--with some ameliorations--among Orthodox today?

In sum, there is something odd about Christians who seem unaware that Jesus changed the world, or acknowledge that he is still with us, and still changing it.

3. For now, however, I will concede that by a massive exercise in disingenuous if well-intentioned semantic transformations one can minimize the development of Catholic moral thought on things like slavery (and usury, democracy, etc.).

So, let us employ the same reasoning.

If approving horrificly degrading ancient chattel slavery is like acknowleding trivial modern restrictions on freedom...

If prohibitions on charging any interest at all is like a general rule to charge only fair interest...

Then gay sex will eventually be like ________ (fill in the blank)

* In some cases, Jesus simply contradicted the law. "Nothing that comes from outside you can defile you, but only what comes out of you" is core to Christian theology, but it's a flat rejection of Jewish law.

And of course the story of Jesus forgiving the adulterer is a non-sequitur here

No, it's not. You seemed to have missed the point, which is that she was going to be stoned. I know you love this particular story, because you believe that people use it to mean something that it doesn't, so in some queer way you can turn what most read as a narrative about forgiveness and the ubiquity of sin into another triumphant reaffirmation that you stand on the side of moral absolutes. However, that's not what I did. I spoke specifically about the stoning.

The fact is that the Bible sanctions—indeed mandates—bashing a certain class of sexual sinners to pieces in acts of savage communal violence. (The Iranians are fond of this today and, in other circumstances, you would surely come down hard on them for it.) Jesus changed that, and it was a major change all of its own. It was not a development, but a change. (Jewish tradition had more of a development, making the rules of evidence so strict that stoning largely passed away, while never being abrogated.)

There are quite a few such changes—instances where Jesus turned away from particular rules toward general moral principles, showing us how they point to a more pure and true expression of divine worship and the proper relationships with others. It's not surprising that Christians—including Catholics—have continued to do this slow refining our understanding, separating incidental, narrow moral stands (ie., Paul's opinions on dress or whatever), from the great moral principle of the faith. This process was certainly how slavery was ended. The great British and American abolitionists lived their faith, and saw its principles of love and equality as requiring them to act against the great evil of slavery.

That Catholic theology played little part in that great moral movement—one of a number of sorely missed moral stands in the last two centuries—should be an opportunity to reflect on what can go wrong when you take your eye off the living Christ and attend to a dead one.

#483 & 484
Will you two cut down on the ad hominem stuff :-) This is an interesting thread even if it has gone OT many times. One doesn't have a need to debate or argue with a person with whom one is in total agreement. Hence the value of these Topic forums in librarything. I've learned a lot from this thread and from a wide range of others because I have wide interests, ranging over science, lit, philosophy, theology, current events etc etc.

So here a few random thoughts on the last few posts:

1. Did Jesus change things? You bet. He was a radical shit-disturber (vernacular for prohpet!). In the Sermon on the Mount, he mentions 6 things from the Mosaic Law which he totally CHANGED (given below as an addendum). They begin with "You have heard it said of old" -- and end with "But I say to you" - - - -. He CHANGED the Jewish Law in which he was raised in the synagogue. One of the reasons for his death was given to Pontius Pilate and went something like (haven't time to look it up) -- "this man changes the Law of Moses".
So instead of WWJD, perhaps we should ask what, today, would Jesus CHANGE. Perhaps he would take his whip into the Vatican's Curia and say "This is my Father's house, but you have made it a den of thieves.

2. It is queer that you two use the word queer since we're discussing homosexuality and gay marriage :-) The Catholic Church is way behind the Episcopal Church in not only accepting gay people (actually LGBT) but in ordaining some to the priesthood and bishopric e.g. Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire who lives with his boyfriend and The Bishop Mary D. Glasspool of LA who is a lesbian.
Despite it's opposition to the homosexuality position of the Episcopal Church, The Vatican recently invited married priests of the Anglican Church of England to "convert" to Catholicism and remain married priests. (I'm trying not to confuse the two issues because, obviously, married priests and homosexual priests are very different issues.)

3. The phenomenon of married Episcopal and Lutheran priests becoming married Catholic priests is at least 50 years old. I remember many years ago meeting one from Australia. The Uniate Churches which are in full union with Rome have married clergy e.g. the Maronite rite of Lebanon. (I also met on of them some years ago.)
The Catholic Church admits that its law of compulsory celibacy is arbitrary, and just a rule of the Church, not intrinsic to its doctrine. Somehow monastic vows got mandatory for all priests. Why? There are some interesting theories.
In the Community College about 2 miles from where I live they have the anomaly that the Catholic chaplain is a former Episcopal priest who is now a married Catholic priest, and the Episcopal chaplain is a former Catholic who is now a married Episcopal priest. The staff get some fun and innocent jest with it (in fact, most couldn't care less). I've had interesting discussions with both these priests. I asked the Episcopal (former RC) priest if he could apply for the same status with the Catholic Church as his fellow chaplain and he said no, that Canon Law had excommunicated him automatically because of his "apostacy". Probably consistent with Canon Law but seems strange to put it mildly.

3. With regard to homosexual Catholic priests, surveys show that there is now a much higher percentage of them since the big exodus of heterosexual priests which began in the late 60's. It's estimated that about 100,000 have left -- I'm not sure if that number is USA or worldwide.
Common sense would tell us that some, probably many, of these homosexual priests are active practising gays. Good for them. Where better than an all male environment such as a monastery for gay relationships. Better than the army with their 'don't ask, don't tell' stuff.

4. It seems unlikely, from recent studies, that pedophilia is caused by celibacy -- whether compulsory or voluntary. It seems more likely that adolescents who are troubled by their normal hormonal experience and it's conflict with the puritanical ethos of their Catholic upbringing rushed to seminaries to escape from dealing with their sexuality. This unresolved issue may well be a factor in the development of pedophile priests. Hopefully further studies will get to the root of it.
It was very disingenous of a Catholic bishop recently to blame the phenomen of pedophilia on homosexuality. They are very different issues. In fact, the stats show there is a lower percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals than among heteros.
As I said in a previous post, my brother committed suicide after being molested by a pedophile priest for several years through his teens. It is little comfort to my family, some of whom are loyal Catholics, that, as you (oakesspalding) said in response, that one can never know if the the suicide person repented at the last moment. First, it is difficult to see how a mind clouded by an overdose would be capable of clear thinking. Second, perhaps one could jump off the Golden Gate Bridge with the intention of "repenting" before hitting the water -- not too far from the often-quoted prayer of St. Augustine: "God give me chastity, but not yet".

5. oakesspalding #482 Historically there have been cases where some have argued that secular thought has seemed to lead changes in the Church The Church, to it's loss, has consistently resisted "secular thought". It has much to learn from a dialogue with secularists, agnostics, atheists etc, most of whom have high ethical and humanist values -- even the current trendy doctrinaire militant atheism. Catholicism teaches that "all truth is of God and cannot contradict itself i.e. if it is true in one source it has to be true in all". The Church needs to be more open to secularists and "secular thought".

ADDENDUM:
verse 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

verse27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

verse 31 "And it was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

verse 33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.'34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

verse 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

verse 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

>485 bookmonk8888: Thanks, bookmonk. A few thoughts.

The Catholic Church has been knowingly ordaining homosexual priests and bishops for decades. The only difference is that nobody admits publicly that they are gay. Don't ask, don't tell?

As you say, there is a huge number of married Roman Catholic priests, who were former Anglican clergy. In other words, there is no universal discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

A few years ago a friend of mine found it ironic that in the same week that he received an ultimatum from his bishop to make a choice between the clerical priesthood and a clandestine relationship (with a woman - he isn't gay, and one could speculate whether he would have been asked to make that choice if he were), he also received a pastoral letter from the same bishop to be read out in every parish in the diocese welcoming the latest batch of new married priests. He moved on, and now ministers, with his new spouse, to divorced and remarried Catholics.

That's the other guy.

As always, hell is the other guy.

In his review of The Good Man Jesus and The Scoundrel Christ, Christopher Hitchens states that -

Pullman continues in this manner, parable by famous parable (including the celebrated one about the adulterous woman and casting the first stone, which most scholars now agree was added centuries after the Gospels were written).

How does this affect the conversation up-thread? Is Hitchens correct in his assessment of scholar's assessment?

It's an interesting question. There are two question: First, was it added later? Second, was it made up, or did it come from a reputable source? I think it's pretty clear it's not by the main author(s) of John. But John is a composite source, so while you want to establish layers and fix them in time, it's false to contrast a perfect original document with a tampered one.

I'd incline to believe it traced back to something real. The various citations of it from non-canonical sources seem to indicate it was known, if not in the Gospel there.

Exactly what's going on in—in the story or the author's head, as regards the "writing"—is unclear. Is Jesus rewriting scripture in the dirt? Just being mysterious, such that people remembered what he did, without knowing what was going on? Anyway, it's unclear to me.

That said, the story seems likely to have been embarrassing to some early Christians, so it's more likely to have been suppressed than created. Wikipedia has a nice quote Augustine alone those lines:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

Augustine, I think, also misses that Jesus did not merely forgive her, he stopped the stoning. But, as with moderns, such acts were in the past for Augustine.

That said, it's definitely hard to put a lot of weight on something that rests on shaky textual foundation. As a type of story, however, it's hardly the only one. Jesus repeatedly reworks, reinterprets or basically rejects parts of the Law in favor of more abstract moral principles. (It's worth adding that Jesus was hardly alone in doing this.)

>489 Jesse_wiedinmyer: ( Jess wiedinmyer)

It is not impossible that this story was added later. Redaction Criticism shows that most ancient manuscripts had changes made to them later by other people than the author. The question is: is the addition in keeping with the teaching of Jesus. It would seem, in this case, to be very consistent with his teaching.

I wish Hitchens would read Joseph Campbell the eminent Mythology scholar. He, Hitchens, admitted on a TV interview that he hadn't although he added that many people had asked him to. Myth, including Biblical Myths, do convey meaning. They were written in a pre-scientific age and were an effort to grapple with the mystery of life. I find Hitchens too much in the trendy militant atheism that is as evangelic for converts as religions themselves.

There was a strong movement in the early part of the 20th. century called De-mythologizing the Bible. It's founder was Rudolf Bultmann

To 4: Very few of the Catholic sex abuse cases were pedophile in the technical sense of the word (sexual relations to pre-puberty children) the greatest part were relations to boys 12-16 (there has been a statistical investigation to the point in the archdiocese of Chicago). While such a sexual relation of a priest (or teacher or sport trainer etc.) with a dependent is against the law and against every moral standard, the perpetrator has no pedophile but very probably homosexual inclinations not very different from those of other gays - how many gays would generally think a sexual relation with a 14 or 15 year old boy as unthinkable? as morally wrong?

So the "pedophile scandal of the Catholic Church" is in most cases not perpetrated by pedophile but by homosexual priests (who are no pedophiles).

Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

how many gays would generally think a sexual relation with a 14 or 15 year old boy as unthinkable? as morally wrong?

I'd be willing to wager that that would be a majority.

Though unthinkable is a rather odd choice of word in the context. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

The implication that gays would more likely find sex with a minor to be acceptable than straights is asstastic, though.

492> Information in posts #29 and #54 above are not consistent with your claims. The leading statistical indicator of a likely cleric sex abuser is a cleric who was abused himself.

The conflation of pedophilia and homosexuality is unfortunate.