MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: mu03eng on August 20, 2018, 11:59:07 AM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html)
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been a topic here. I think all of the accusations/allegations are pre-2002 so this isn't a case of the Catholic Church continuing to cover up priest abuse, but I am completely baffled at how there can still be these things to dig up? How is rooting this out of the church and surfacing all the evil they've let happen not the number one priority in the US especially?
Full disclosure, I'm not Catholic so I've got some emotional distance from this if you will, but man, I don't get how one could continue to support such an institution that can't get in front of this.
-
I have long wondered the same thing. My guess is that people mentally dissociate the acts (and the people who commit them) from the church and its teachings. But if the teachers (priests) who committed these acts are effectively God’s messengers, that seems like a weak distinction...especially since this has happened many times before.
I struggle to see how anyone can expect real change as long as priests have to take the vow of celibacy. There will always be sexual abuse as long as there are differences in power among people, but adding the vow of celibacy only increases the risk.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html)
How is rooting this out of the church and surfacing all the evil they've let happen not the number one priority in the US especially?
My theory is that the real reason Rome isn't doing much about it is because they know its still happening on an equally or greater scale internationally.
-
I have long wondered the same thing. My guess is that people mentally dissociate the acts (and the people who commit them) from the church and its teachings. But if the teachers (priests) who committed these acts are effectively God’s messengers, that seems like a weak distinction...especially since this has happened many times before.
I struggle to see how anyone can expect real change as long as priests have to take the vow of celibacy. There will always be sexual abuse as long as there are differences in power among people, but adding the vow of celibacy only increases the risk.
It seems crazy that anyone would consider a priest "God's messenger." They're people. People who choose a vocation like any of us--it's just that their choice is commit wholly to their faith (or at least that's the presumptive purpose). That choice does not endow them with some unique ability for divine insight.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html)
I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been a topic here. I think all of the accusations/allegations are pre-2002 so this isn't a case of the Catholic Church continuing to cover up priest abuse, but I am completely baffled at how there can still be these things to dig up? How is rooting this out of the church and surfacing all the evil they've let happen not the number one priority in the US especially?
Full disclosure, I'm not Catholic so I've got some emotional distance from this if you will, but man, I don't get how one could continue to support such an institution that can't get in front of this.
When you have organizations that have traditionally acted in secrecy and without people questioning their authority, this type of stuff is inevitable.
We've seen it with all sorts of organizations from USA Gymnastics to Louisville basketball. Now take those organizations and multiply them by a billion in terms of size, scope and history, and you have the Catholic Church.
And yes, the odd obsession with sex is part of the problem as well.
-
I have long wondered the same thing. My guess is that people mentally dissociate the acts (and the people who commit them) from the church and its teachings. But if the teachers (priests) who committed these acts are effectively God’s messengers, that seems like a weak distinction...especially since this has happened many times before.
I struggle to see how anyone can expect real change as long as priests have to take the vow of celibacy. There will always be sexual abuse as long as there are differences in power among people, but adding the vow of celibacy only increases the risk.
I agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second part. I'm not sure how a vow of celibacy has anything to do with whether or not they are pedophiles unless the argument is that people who would pick a vocation where celibacy is a requirement are more likely to be pedophiles. Maybe I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "well I can't sleep with adult women or adult men....guess I'll have to fool around with kids". Long story short, I don't think the celibacy has anything to do with it...I think these are folks who would have had that predilection regardless of vocation. It's the enablers that blows my mind, I just don't understand how you aid and abet someone who has been found to do something so horrific multiple times.
-
I agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second part. I'm not sure how a vow of celibacy has anything to do with whether or not they are pedophiles unless the argument is that people who would pick a vocation where celibacy is a requirement are more likely to be pedophiles. Maybe I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "well I can't sleep with adult women or adult men....guess I'll have to fool around with kids". Long story short, I don't think the celibacy has anything to do with it...I think these are folks who would have had that predilection regardless of vocation. It's the enablers that blows my mind, I just don't understand how you aid and abet someone who has been found to do something so horrific multiple times.
I think the vow of celibacy can be attractive to people with sexual predilections that are deemed socially unacceptable. And I don't think its even always a conscious choice, but the vow obviates the need for that person to explain or confront those sexual inclinations. Theoretically (dogmatically?) it also provides the brightest path for them to take a moral stand against those inclinations. Most people probably wish they weren't that way - its a source of shame, and pursuing a life as a celibate priest is the best way to be different. In actuality, however, the underlying issues are never addressed, and they put themselves in positions to become predators.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-church-sex-abuse-pennsylvania.html)
I don't get how one could continue to support such an institution that can't get in front of this.
Because if you are a person of faith, and you believe in what the Church teaches, especially the Sacraments, then why would you let evil men disrupt your relationship with God.
-
When I was in high school, our Roman Catholic diocesean high school had a significant and real problem with priests who were pedophiaics. Their public behavior was enough to cause many of us, even at a ripe age of 14, to question their sanity and yet, no one listened. That said, I went to high school in the 1970s, when the problem was real and there were far fewer procedures for dealing with the problem then there are today.
A few lessons that I hope the church and the faithful has learned.
1) Children's compliants should not be dismissed out of hand. Probe as to why there is a problem and don't necessarily assume the children are wrong or the authority is right. That was a huge problem with parents, who thought priests were above misbehavior of any type.
2) The church has to realize that it serves the people. The faithful do not serve the church. Too much of the problem we had was the result of corporate "group think" and damage control that was organizational in nature. The church through the 1980s too often forgot their first job was to the faithful and not to the institution itself.
3) The Roman Catholic Church is a human organization and, as a collection of humans, is prone to mistakes and, dare I say it, sinfulness. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church as a group of people has done enormous good in recent years. It is one of the world's largest NGOs providing health care, education, sanitation and other social services. Sure it makes mistakes and will continue to do so, but in many ways, one can argue that much of the folks that make up the church are living the Gospel every day.
-
Because if you are a person of faith, and you believe in what the Church teaches, especially the Sacraments, then why would you let evil men disrupt your relationship with God.
Because at some point the institution via its corrupting evil can no longer provide said relationship. Further, it's the Lutheran in my, but why do you have to have an institution of fallible humans stand as a bridge to your relationship with God?
-
Because if you are a person of faith, and you believe in what the Church teaches, especially the Sacraments, then why would you let evil men disrupt your relationship with God.
I agree with the poster you are responding too. The Catholic church is a massive criminal organization. 300 cases in just one state. Extrapolate that out to the entire country. Then add the rest of the world. we are probably talking tens of thousands of child molesters and rapists. Bishop after bishop after Archbishop is complicit in this evil, organized crime spree. How can this be supported in any way?
I abandoned the church (not catholic) in the late 80's. Their response to the aids epidemic helped kill thousands and thousands of young men. They were complicit in these deaths and I was not going to be a part of that. Now, "christian churches once again are showing their callousness in this country.
My personal beliefs have not changed at all -only my affiliations
-
I agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second part. I'm not sure how a vow of celibacy has anything to do with whether or not they are pedophiles unless the argument is that people who would pick a vocation where celibacy is a requirement are more likely to be pedophiles. Maybe I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "well I can't sleep with adult women or adult men....guess I'll have to fool around with kids". Long story short, I don't think the celibacy has anything to do with it...I think these are folks who would have had that predilection regardless of vocation. It's the enablers that blows my mind, I just don't understand how you aid and abet someone who has been found to do something so horrific multiple times.
I think the vow of celibacy is related in a couple of ways though its definitely correlation not causation.
1. It limits the pool of available priests which limits the church's ability to be more selective with their hires
2. The vow of celibacy is a major barrier to non-pedophiles but may not seem like such a barrier to pedophiles
3. It contributes to the oppressive culture around sex in the church where people are afraid to mention what happens in the bedroom. This in turn shames victims and bystanders into silence.
-
I think the vow of celibacy can be attractive to people with sexual predilections that are deemed socially unacceptable. And I don't think its even always a conscious choice, but the vow obviates the need for that person to explain or confront those sexual inclinations. Theoretically (dogmatically?) it also provides the brightest path for them to take a moral stand against those inclinations. Most people probably wish they weren't that way - its a source of shame, and pursuing a life as a celibate priest is the best way to be different. In actuality, however, the underlying issues are never addressed, and they put themselves in positions to become predators.
I'm pretty much in agreement with '03 on this - on the face of it, celibacy has no connection whatsoever with pedophilia or ephebophilia. Your points are interesting, though, and likely have validity. But I think the most logical reasons that these people choose the priesthood (or coaching, boy scout leader, etc.) is access and authority/power. They know who they are and seek fertile ground for their obsessions/sickness. The fact that the Church is a large institution that "protects" itself makes it that much more attractive to these sick individuals.
-
has anyone ever read the book "goodbye, good men"?
celibacy is a red herring. how would that keep these perverts from going after young kids? to say that the church is pressured into filling the seminary's with sexually deviant males because if only they could get married...is a lazy answer. my best analogy are the dentists who keep telling their patients they must have their wisdom teeth extracted to prevent their front teeth from becoming crowded. it's been repeated for so long and so often, even some dentists believe it
i can be just as catholic or more than anyone by following the word of the lord as best as I know it. i have come upon spirituality outside of the church as well as within. priests can be as fallible as anyone. there are bad apples in every walk of life.
-
To say the Catholic Church is evil is false. Yes there are those among its members that are absolutely evil. The above report is more than enough evidence. The Catholic church also operates innumerable hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens food pantries and charities. Recently, Catholic Charities (just one organization) has been donating around 4 Billion dollars per year since 2010 or so, that doesn't even count anything that happens on a parish level. The Catholic Church is very likely the largest charitable organization in the world.
One victim of the above abuse is too many. The perpetrators of such heinous acts should be punished accordingly. Those covering up such acts should be treated accordingly.
-
One victim of the above abuse is too many. The perpetrators of such heinous acts should be punished accordingly. Those covering up such acts should be treated accordingly.
I agree with the first half that there is good being done.
The issue/question in my mind is that the Catholic Church is a centrally run organization (like a corporation really) whose rotten culture was exposed. It is hard to separate the people from the whole in that situation. Further this is a global phenomenon...not a local or isolated event.
There were lots of good folks I’m sure at Enron and Union Carbide—but their cultures ultimately killed the whole.
I hope the leadership can find a way to change the culture for the better and regain the trust of the people.
-
Catholic Charities is a part of the Catholic church like Marquette is right? It's a separate organization run by its own Board of Directors and not the diocese.
-
Catholic Charities is a part of the Catholic church like Marquette is right? It's a separate organization run by its own Board of Directors and not the diocese.
Correct.
Think of it more like United Way. There is the umbrella organization and many local chapters or entities.
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with '03 on this - on the face of it, celibacy has no connection whatsoever with pedophilia or ephebophilia. Your points are interesting, though, and likely have validity. But I think the most logical reasons that these people choose the priesthood (or coaching, boy scout leader, etc.) is access and authority/power. They know who they are and seek fertile ground for their obsessions/sickness. The fact that the Church is a large institution that "protects" itself makes it that much more attractive to these sick individuals.
The celibacy discussion is very interesting.
I agree with the many sociologists, psychologists, criminal behaviorists, etc, who think this kind of behavior is far more about power and control than it is about sex.
But TAMU and a couple others make intriguing points about how celibacy could have some roundabout contributing effects on this whole issue.
One thing that's indisputable is that the Catholic Church has a shameful history on this issue.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
People can spin facts however best fits their agenda, but the stats say that when it comes to abuse, the Catholic Church seems to be representative of the general population. Not that it’s any consolation, I’m sure, but one should recognize that these cases mostly, if not all, amount to behaviors of rogue actors, i.e. I haven’t seen one instance where a priest has hidden behind the cloak of “fundamentalism” and claimed their deeds were in some way promoted or permitted by the religion’s teachings.
When it comes to either isolated or systemic abuse within religious organizations adjusted to a “incidents per capita” basis, the Catholic Church probably doesn’t even make the top 10. But because of its sheer size, it’s an easy, not to mention politically convenient, target.
That said, nothing excuses the abuse of children whether representative or not. It’s heinous to read about the cover-ups and how many of these priests were simply shuttled around when their deeds came to light. But one should be mindful of how wide the net of responsibility is cast for the unsanctioned acts of a few just because they all happen to share membership in the world’s largest religion.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
People can spin facts however best fits their agenda, but the stats say that when it comes to abuse, the Catholic Church seems to be representative of the general population. Not that it’s any consolation, I’m sure, but one should recognize that these cases mostly, if not all, amount to behaviors of rogue actors, i.e. I haven’t seen one instance where a priest has hidden behind the cloak of “fundamentalism” and claimed their deeds were in some way promoted or permitted by the religion’s teachings.
When it comes to either isolated or systemic abuse within religious organizations adjusted to a “incidents per capita” basis, the Catholic Church probably doesn’t even make the top 10. But because of its sheer size, it’s an easy, not to mention politically convenient, target.
That all may be well and good, Benny, but these priests literally are held up as paragons of virtue. They literally are held up as men of God.
The pedophile baker or mailman or firefighter or journalist or politician is sickening enough, but none of them are being passed off as God's messenger. (Although lots of politicians pass themselves off as God's messengers, it's not the same thing.)
Even the pedophile teacher usually has to earn his prey's trust. Priests are automatically trusted simply because they are men of God.
So while I understand what you're saying, the incidents-per-capita stats you cite mean little IMHO.
-
The celibacy discussion is very interesting.
I agree with the many sociologists, psychologists, criminal behaviorists, etc, who think this kind of behavior is far more about power and control than it is about sex.
But TAMU and a couple others make intriguing points about how celibacy could have some roundabout contributing effects on this whole issue.
One thing that's indisputable is that the Catholic Church has a shameful history on this issue.
An unfortunate side effect of my occupation is that I get to read a lot of research on this very topic. Pedophiles can generally be separated into two categories. Opportunistic sexual predators and "True" pedophiles. The former is the much bigger group. They don't target children because they are attracted to them specifically but get off on the sense of power, control, and domination they can extract from their victims. Children just happen to be the easiest targets. These individuals in most cases are made and not born.
The second category, "True" pedophiles are individuals who are physically attracted to children. Well, even that is a misnomer, its not that they are attracted to people below a certain age but they are attracted to children's body types, usually the hairlessness. Many people don't like to categorize it this way, but really it is a sexual orientation. Most of these unfortunate wretches are born not made. Now don't get it twisted, these individuals are absolutely still responsible for their actions. An alcoholic who drinks and drives is still responsible regardless of the genetic disposition.
As others have already indicated, the scandal with the Catholic Church mostly has to do with sexual predators seeking out occupations that gives them power and control over easy victims. The oath of celibacy stuff is only tangential related IMHO. The biggest role it plays in this is the third reason I mentioned. It does contribute to a culture of shame around sexuality that may have led to victims and bystanders being silenced.
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with '03 on this - on the face of it, celibacy has no connection whatsoever with pedophilia or ephebophilia. Your points are interesting, though, and likely have validity. But I think the most logical reasons that these people choose the priesthood (or coaching, boy scout leader, etc.) is access and authority/power. They know who they are and seek fertile ground for their obsessions/sickness. The fact that the Church is a large institution that "protects" itself makes it that much more attractive to these sick individuals.
I think you are on the right track here. I don't know how it has much to do with authority/power, however.
My last boss was catholic and went to a catholic high school. The church wants an early commitment from kids to be priests. Boys who like girls aren't the ones choosing to become priests, but rather the kids who don't fit in, whether because of their sexual orientation or social awkwardness. He was actually surprised that more priests weren't child molesters.
A solution? Has to be a total reformation of the Church. Ordaining women and getting rid of celibacy would change the dynamics of what type of people were going into priesthood. Telling priests to stop molesting children might be another priority.
Will it happen? Not a chance. The criminal creeps at the top of the church hierarchy have shown their overwhelming priority is to protect child rapists and line their coffers. And, of course, above all, pontificate about their own holiness while they attack adults who were raped as children by their employees.
-
That all may be well and good, Benny, but these priests literally are held up as paragons of virtue. They literally are held up as men of God.
The pedophile baker or mailman or firefighter or journalist or politician is sickening enough, but none of them are being passed off as God's messenger. (Although lots of politicians pass themselves off as God's messengers, it's not the same thing.)
Even the pedophile teacher usually has to earn his prey's trust. Priests are automatically trusted simply because they are men of God.
So while I understand what you're saying, the incidents-per-capita stats you cite mean little IMHO.
I don't know, Mike. Do you really think it matters to a child who's been sexually abused if his predator was a Catholic priest or an atheist Boy Scout leader? Or gymnast or football coach? I'm the first one to fault the church for what amounted to a massive cover up, but I don't agree that extra outrage should be assigned to priests, rabbis and ministers. They're sick, but no sicker than other pedophiles.
-
That all may be well and good, Benny, but these priests literally are held up as paragons of virtue. They literally are held up as men of God.
The pedophile baker or mailman or firefighter or journalist or politician is sickening enough, but none of them are being passed off as God's messenger. (Although lots of politicians pass themselves off as God's messengers, it's not the same thing.)
Even the pedophile teacher usually has to earn his prey's trust. Priests are automatically trusted simply because they are men of God.
So while I understand what you're saying, the incidents-per-capita stats you cite mean little IMHO.
Re-read: incidents per capita within religious organizations. Unless there’s some sort of Baker, Mailman and Journalist religion that sprang up overnight, you’re building straw men from hay in different barns.
To be clear, in other religions, the perpetrators are oft held up as a deity of some manner, or at the very least, something more significant than a simple messenger.
Something that non-Catholics seem to overestimate is the role that priests and deacons play in the Catholic faith... Catholicism teaches us that we are all messengers of God. And - in something of an ironic twist - the relationship of lower clergy to laypersons more closely resembles a “first among equals” view as opposed to a reverent, master-apprentice relationship. Priests may be leaders of their parish, but it’s really more of a business leadership gig, i.e. priests are not held up as higher-level beings any more than the manager at Starbucks is revered as some all-knowing barista.
That said, to a pre-pubescent child, any adult - especially one that is recognized and respected by others - immediately commands trust. An adult who exploits that trust for their own despicable means deserves no trust, respect, deference or otherwise. But to say that it’s worse for a priest to perpetrate such acts because he’s perceived as a “paragon of virtue” is not only shortsighted but extremely marginalizing to victims whose - by your logic - own nightmare wasn’t as bad because their perpetrator simply happened to be a no-name, drunken New York brawler with a bunch of priors.
-
I don't know, Mike. Do you really think it matters to a child who's been sexually abused if his predator was a Catholic priest or an atheist Boy Scout leader? Or gymnast or football coach? I'm the first one to fault the church for what amounted to a massive cover up, but I don't agree that extra outrage should be assigned to priests, rabbis and ministers. They're sick, but no sicker than other pedophiles.
If moral character is a central tenant of the occupation there should be extra outrage for this heinous type of moral failing. Whether a priest or a scout leader they should be held to higher account. And who really should be held to higher account is the leadership of those types of organizations. The leadership failing of the dioceses has nothing to do with whether the predators were made or born and everything to do with failed moral character which is central to their charter.
-
Re-read: incidents per capita within religious organizations. Unless there’s some sort of Baker, Mailman and Journalist religion that sprang up overnight, you’re building straw men from hay in different barns.
To be clear, in other religions, the perpetrators are oft held up as a deity of some manner, or at the very least, something more significant than a simple messenger.
Something that non-Catholics seem to overestimate is the role that priests and deacons play in the Catholic faith... Catholicism teaches us that we are all messengers of God. And - in something of an ironic twist - the relationship of lower clergy to laypersons more closely resembles a “first among equals” view as opposed to a reverent, master-apprentice relationship. Priests may be leaders of their parish, but it’s really more of a business leadership gig, i.e. priests are not held up as higher-level beings any more than the manager at Starbucks is revered as some all-knowing barista.
That said, to a pre-pubescent child, any adult - especially one that is recognized and respected by others - immediately commands trust. An adult who exploits that trust for their own despicable means deserves no trust, respect, deference or otherwise. But to say that it’s worse for a priest to perpetrate such acts because he’s perceived as a “paragon of virtue” is not only shortsighted but extremely marginalizing to victims whose - by your logic - own nightmare wasn’t as bad because their perpetrator simply happened to be a no-name, drunken New York brawler with a bunch of priors.
That is true today, but when the abuse occurred priests and pastors were looked upon as men of virtue especially in many of the ethnic (ie Polish, Italian, German and Irish) parishes which were the norm in the church for most of its history in America. You should see the excellent film Spotlight about the abuse in Boston that sheds some light on how priests , pastors and bishops were held in high esteem by their parishioners; and for a priest to do such a thing was unthinkable.
-
That said, to a pre-pubescent child, any adult - especially one that is recognized and respected by others - immediately commands trust. An adult who exploits that trust for their own despicable means deserves no trust, respect, deference or otherwise. But to say that it’s worse for a priest to perpetrate such acts because he’s perceived as a “paragon of virtue” is not only shortsighted but extremely marginalizing to victims whose - by your logic - own nightmare wasn’t as bad because their perpetrator simply happened to be a no-name, drunken New York brawler with a bunch of priors.
Agree 100%
-
If moral character is a central tenant of the occupation there should be extra outrage for this heinous type of moral failing. Whether a priest or a scout leader they should be held to higher account. And who really should be held to higher account is the leadership of those types of organizations. The leadership failing of the dioceses has nothing to do with whether the predators were made or born and everything to do with failed moral character which is central to their charter.
Disagree.
-
It seems crazy that anyone would consider a priest "God's messenger." They're people. People who choose a vocation like any of us--it's just that their choice is commit wholly to their faith (or at least that's the presumptive purpose). That choice does not endow them with some unique ability for divine insight.
Who said anything about a unique ability for divine insight?
Look up the definition of "messenger" in most dictionaries and you'd find things such as the following:
a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.
synonyms:courier, runner, envoy, emissary, agent, go-between, message-bearer;
Nothing about divine inspiration....
-
That all may be well and good, Benny, but these priests literally are held up as paragons of virtue. They literally are held up as men of God.
The pedophile baker or mailman or firefighter or journalist or politician is sickening enough, but none of them are being passed off as God's messenger. (Although lots of politicians pass themselves off as God's messengers, it's not the same thing.)
Even the pedophile teacher usually has to earn his prey's trust. Priests are automatically trusted simply because they are men of God.
So while I understand what you're saying, the incidents-per-capita stats you cite mean little IMHO.
I think by far the most distressing part though isn't that priests are assaulting children. Unfortunately that's going to happen all across society. It's happened since the dawn of time and will happen well into the future.
The most distressing aspect of this is how the hierarchy of the Church not only systematically ignored it, but actively worked to keep those priests active by shuffling them around and covering it all up. Not to mention rarely (if ever) contacting the legal authorities.
-
A solution? Has to be a total reformation of the Church. Ordaining women and getting rid of celibacy would change the dynamics of what type of people were going into priesthood.
As evidence, there is A LOT less of these actions in Christian denominations where the clergy is allowed to marry and includes women.
-
The difficulty with dealing with the pedophilia problem in the Roman Catholic Church is the feudal governance system used by the church to concentrate authority.
Like the middle ages, there are no checks and balances on bishops. Priests have but one reporting line -- to the local bishop -- and in most cases, dioceses are too large to closely manage pastors. In recent years, the Catholic Church has tried to create these checks and balances through parish pastoral councils but the problems is the pastor is still capable of overruling anything a PPC does.
The feudal lord, in this case the bishop, has absolute authority over his kingdom. And, in many places, the bishop or archbishop had an "understood power" among local elected officials that effectively meant that the local mayors and councilmen toed the line the Bishop wanted.
Into this feudal environment came the child abuse scandals. Children would go home and report goings-on in classrooms or in church activities that were irregular to their parents. The parents, indoctrinated to believe that the Bishop, Pastor and Assistant Pastors had dedicated their lives to God and were men of goodwill, were appalled that their children would speak ill of a man of God. And, if they believed their children, where were they to go? If you were in a Catholic Community, nobody would believe you, much less act. If you were in a Protestant community and went to civil authorities, you were anti-Catholic.
That, in no small measure, is why we have a problem. And, to be candid, why our Protestant brothers and sisters have problems as well. The largest Protestant congregation in the Midwest, Willow Creek Church in Barrington, IL is now facing the same problems related to sexual abuse by an elder of a young man. And, of course, many of us remember the sex scandals of the televangalists of the 1980s and 1990s.
-
Re-read: incidents per capita within religious organizations. Unless there’s some sort of Baker, Mailman and Journalist religion that sprang up overnight, you’re building straw men from hay in different barns.
Benny, somehow I missed the "within religious organizations" clause. My apologies.
I don't know, Mike. Do you really think it matters to a child who's been sexually abused if his predator was a Catholic priest or an atheist Boy Scout leader? Or gymnast or football coach? I'm the first one to fault the church for what amounted to a massive cover up, but I don't agree that extra outrage should be assigned to priests, rabbis and ministers. They're sick, but no sicker than other pedophiles.
I think you're twisting my point a little, Lenny.
I'm not saying it matters more after the fact to the victim. I'm saying that one is more likely to be victimized if one completely trusts the potential perpetrator.
Yes, the scout leader or coach also are trusted adults. But I do think there is something about a "man of God" that elevates it to, well, a godlike status. Yes, even above the godlike status of, say, Nick Saban!
Just my opinion. Obviously, I have no evidence that I'm right.
And I agree with you, sultan and others that the real outrage has to be directed at the Catholic church hierarchy.
The church wants an early commitment from kids to be priests. Boys who like girls aren't the ones choosing to become priests, but rather the kids who don't fit in, whether because of their sexual orientation or social awkwardness. He was actually surprised that more priests weren't child molesters.
A solution? Has to be a total reformation of the Church. Ordaining women and getting rid of celibacy would change the dynamics of what type of people were going into priesthood. Telling priests to stop molesting children might be another priority.
Will it happen? Not a chance. The criminal creeps at the top of the church hierarchy have shown their overwhelming priority is to protect child rapists and line their coffers. And, of course, above all, pontificate about their own holiness while they attack adults who were raped as children by their employees.
This is an extremely interesting take and, to me, a logical one.
Ordaining women and ending the celibacy requirement would at least be good starts to see where it takes the church on this issue. I'm pretty sure such basic changes couldn't make things worse and, as you suggest, might go a long way toward the reform that's desperately needed.
-
This isn't going to be sources or 100% accurate, as I don't have time right now, but here goes anyway.
A lot of the priests that are doing the abuse/molestation were ordained in the 1950s and 60s. As expected, many come from large Catholic families. It was a source of pride to have a son become a priest.
The oldest son probably isn't going to be pushed into the priesthood by the parents, he has to take over the family farm/business. The son with the aptitude for medicine or other higher learning gets to pursue that vocation.
It's the "weird" son (remember, this is the 50's and 60's) is the one that is given to God to be a priest. This solves several problems. The family get to say they have a priest in the family. He'll get to baptize and marry the nieces and nephews. The family isn't scandalized by having a sexually deviant (50s-60s again) son that embarrasses the family.
Next, who are the priests that are teaching in the seminary? Mainly younger priests, from what I have seen (not sourced). The seminarians are drawn into a circle of trust with the teacher priests, who turns out they have more in common than the Gospel of St Mark, if ya know what I'm saying.
Plus, the feudal nature of the church as mentioned above and you have this mess we are in now. People talk about the blue line when it comes to cops not ratting on fellow cops. Same goes here, human nature makes you protect your friends, irrational as that thought might be.
-
That is true today, but when the abuse occurred priests and pastors were looked upon as men of virtue especially in many of the ethnic (ie Polish, Italian, German and Irish) parishes which were the norm in the church for most of its history in America. You should see the excellent film Spotlight about the abuse in Boston that sheds some light on how priests , pastors and bishops were held in high esteem by their parishioners; and for a priest to do such a thing was unthinkable.
I'm certainly not discounting the fact that priests are oft held in high esteem, especially in ethnic groups. But I can personally attest to there being parishes where the parishioners were/are widely disappointed in their assigned pastor and/or highly skeptical of the pastor's motivations/vision. My parish in the mid-1980's was one of them.... had any accusations been made by one of our young parishioners at the time - even before accusations were popping up elsewhere - there would have been pitchforks and torches outside our church within an hour.
My point here is that while family members, other parishioners, and lay leaders of the church may have been complicit in some cases - whether for reasons of holding clergy in higher esteem or not - one must not use such a wide brush to apply the same to the majority. I think we can agree that primary guilt rests with the priests committing the acts and that this cancer was enabled and allowed to fester by the bishops who did the shuttling and silencing.
But is there something more that the parishioners could have done? Perhaps in a handful of the cases, but for every parishioner who may have played a small role in aiding and abetting the perpetration of abuse by either denying, ignoring, or disbelieving - whether through action or inaction - in deference to clergy, there were hundreds - if not thousands - of parishioners who were honestly and completely in the dark.
An offshoot of this whole "worse when held to greater standard" argument implies that the parishioners are to some extent culpable to the abuse that occurred within their church, and that's unfair to Catholics who hadn't the slightest knowledge of any abuse when (or even many years after) it was happening yet have universally & unequivocally condemned these acts since day one.
Blanket condemnation of Catholic or their faith for priest abuse is no different than the blanket condemnation of Muslims or Islam for 9/11. Unfortunately, some people think one is OK and not the other purely for political reasons. In other words, I don't believe in this so-called anti-Catholic bias (at least nowhere near the level that some wish to imply) exists, but I do believe Catholics - like Muslims - can make for excellent scapegoats when it's politically convenient to do so.
-
Blanket condemnation of Catholic or their faith for priest abuse is no different than the blanket condemnation of Muslims or Islam for 9/11. Unfortunately, some people think one is OK and not the other purely for political reasons. In other words, I don't believe in this so-called anti-Catholic bias (at least nowhere near the level that some wish to imply) exists, but I do believe Catholics - like Muslims - can make for excellent scapegoats when it's politically convenient to do so.
Does the Islamic faith have a similar hierarchical organizational structure to the Catholic Church? I plead ignorance on how Muslim places of worship are structured, geographically and economically. If Islam in America is not structured similarly, however, I think this comparison falls apart.
The "capital C" Church's hierarchical structure objectively contributed to the scope of the problem and the cover up here, and a number of now very high ranking Catholic leaders have been discovered to have knowingly moved abusive priests from parish to parish. Every institution will have bad actors, the question is whether those actors are discrete and isolated individuals or connected through an enabling web of higher ups and geographically disparate places of worship.
-
Does the Islamic faith have a similar hierarchical organizational structure to the Catholic Church? I plead ignorance on how Muslim places of worship are structured, geographically and economically. If Islam in America is not structured similarly, however, I think this comparison falls apart.
The "capital C" Church's hierarchical structure objectively contributed to the scope of the problem and the cover up here, and a number of now very high ranking Catholic leaders have been discovered to have knowingly moved abusive priests from parish to parish. Every institution will have bad actors, the question is whether those actors are discrete and isolated individuals or connected through an enabling web of higher ups and geographically disparate places of worship.
Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.
-
Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.
Has anyone made this argument?
-
It would be easy to modify the celibacy policy. Some priests belong to orders that require the vow of poverty (Franciscans & Jesuits, for example). Others do not (Diocesan priests do not take the vow of poverty). You could do the same thing with the vow of celibacy: if it's an important element to a priest's spirituality, then join an order that requires it. If not, then become a priest and join an order where you don't have to take the vow of celibacy. I do believe such a change would open up the recruiting pool in the Church.
Those who have opined that the faithful need to push back at the clergy are spot on. Instead of spending inordinate time and resources changing the text in the Order of Mass (consubstantial with the Father/good grief! Or my pet peeve: "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," instead of "I am not worthy to receive you"--wow, what a game changer) perhaps we the "faithful" need to insist on accountability and correction.
-
maybe that "celibacy" thing should be considered by the schools for their teachers as well?
-
A lot of this cover up was under JP2's papacy. Wonder if the Vatican is regretting rushing his sainthood through on the fast track.
John 23 went in on the same day. He had longer to wait but was also pope during this period.
-
maybe that "celibacy" thing should be considered by the schools for their teachers as well?
Nah ... too busy giving them guns.
-
Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino's comments didn't go well with many on this topic this past Saturday.
-
Nah ... too busy giving them guns.
celibacy, 'ey? seems most of those teachers having their way with our children are married, that celibacy thing didn't seem to tame them enough to risk going to jail over their carnal desires
my point is, in the book-"goodbye, good men" the author states that the number of men who truly want to be "priests", is understated because everyone thinks the numbers were down because of the celibacy rule. rather, it was the systemic corruption of the catholic church starting in the seminaries that drove the numbers of "good men" from the church. many local references are made in the book, including rembert weakland, and st francis de sales and sacred heart. the new, young wanna be's were shunned if they did not accept the new order they wanted to establish within the church. they were either held back from advancing or had to go in for "attitude adjustments". even then, it was difficult to get promotions. they established a very secret hedonistic atmosphere of partying and casual sex that permeated the institutions which went against the grain of many who truly wanted to pursue the life of a priest.
-
Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino's comments didn't go well with many on this topic this past Saturday.
Morlino's comments on most things dont go over well.
-
I met Morlino when he was a priest in our diocese in 1981. My impression of him as a 15 year old was that he was a creepy jerk. Nothing he has done has improved that opinion. Drove my best friend from the Catholic Church due to his actions regarding my friend's mom's funeral.
-
Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.
But the structure is relevant to the point of creating a moral imperative for change on the part of the common Catholic. Locality is everything here. The PA report found 300 predator priests across 6 parishes and 100 in Pittsburgh alone over 70 years. It is not hyperbole to say that entire organization was rotten at its core. Any organization in any other context with comparable numbers of leadership, economic resources and abusers would be disbanded.
Does the common Catholic in Pittsburgh have a heightened responsibility to demand a complete overhaul of the Catholic structure there, before they can lend any type of support? I would say yes and that at some point, the common Catholic that continues supporting that organization without transformative reform is an enabler.
-
celibacy, 'ey? seems most of those teachers having their way with our children are married, that celibacy thing didn't seem to tame them enough to risk going to jail over their carnal desires
my point is, in the book-"goodbye, good men" the author states that the number of men who truly want to be "priests", is understated because everyone thinks the numbers were down because of the celibacy rule. rather, it was the systemic corruption of the catholic church starting in the seminaries that drove the numbers of "good men" from the church. many local references are made in the book, including rembert weakland, and st francis de sales and sacred heart. the new, young wanna be's were shunned if they did not accept the new order they wanted to establish within the church. they were either held back from advancing or had to go in for "attitude adjustments". even then, it was difficult to get promotions. they established a very secret hedonistic atmosphere of partying and casual sex that permeated the institutions which went against the grain of many who truly wanted to pursue the life of a priest.
I could see internal corruption playing a role once men join seminary. But I don't think that explains why there are less and less men going to seminary every year. It's just one example but I might have considered the priesthood if not for the celibacy requirement. I have always known that I was called to have a family so being a priest was never an option for me even though I used to be very heavily involved with the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with several other men who have said the same thing. This all anecdotal of course.
The oath of celibacy is one I think the church should re-examine. Not because their numbers are down, but because there isn't scripture to support it. There is actually is nothing in the bible about celibate priests. Most leaders of the early church were married. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that it was declared that priests couldn't marry...after ordination. Men who were already married could become priests. In 385 AD the Pope declared that priests could no longer have sex with their wives. An oath of celibacy wasn't required of priests until Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and it wasn't until the first Lateran Council in 1123 AD that priests were forbidden from marrying.
-
I could see internal corruption playing a role once men join seminary. But I don't think that explains why there are less and less men going to seminary every year. It's just one example but I might have considered the priesthood if not for the celibacy requirement. I have always known that I was called to have a family so being a priest was never an option for me even though I used to be very heavily involved with the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with several other men who have said the same thing. This all anecdotal of course.
The oath of celibacy is one I think the church should re-examine. Not because their numbers are down, but because there isn't scripture to support it. There is actually is nothing in the bible about celibate priests. Most leaders of the early church were married. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that it was declared that priests couldn't marry...after ordination. Men who were already married could become priests. In 385 AD the Pope declared that priests could no longer have sex with their wives. An oath of celibacy wasn't required of priests until Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and it wasn't until the first Lateran Council in 1123 AD that priests were forbidden from marrying.
One of the reasons for a celibate clergy was to insure that the wealth of the church stayed with the church (hierarchy?) rather than going to powerful European families; but you are correct that there is no biblical basis for celibacy. It is just a matter of time before that requirement will be lifted. Look at how many of the pastoral functions the married deacons have taken on in our parishes. I do think a married clergy in the Catholic church will bring a new set of issues to parish life as the parish or the Diocese will have to provide an adequate stipend for the pastor and associate pastors to support a family and the finances of the parishes and Diocese will have to be a lay/clergy partnership where no one person has complete access to to the monies the church collects.
-
Furthermore, I would argue that having priests that are married and have children give them a greater understanding of the issues that their members face. And give them an outlet to relax and separate their personal lives from their professional ones. I mean, that is something we generally like in the rest of society. Why not the priesthood?
I've male male pastors, female pastors, married and unmarried. There has been no correlation in my mind regarding their marital status or their gender and their ability to be a good pastor.
-
But the structure is relevant to the point of creating a moral imperative for change on the part of the common Catholic. Locality is everything here. The PA report found 300 predator priests across 6 parishes and 100 in Pittsburgh alone over 70 years. It is not hyperbole to say that entire organization was rotten at its core. Any organization in any other context with comparable numbers of leadership, economic resources and abusers would be disbanded.
Does the common Catholic in Pittsburgh have a heightened responsibility to demand a complete overhaul of the Catholic structure there, before they can lend any type of support? I would say yes and that at some point, the common Catholic that continues supporting that organization without transformative reform is an enabler.
It's a valid point, and I don't disagree with anything you're saying in the first paragraph, but the sentiment of your second paragraph parallels the ignorance of the critics insomuch that they falsely deem a person's faith as "support" of/for the Church.
I am a practicing Catholic, I will be the first to go on record here in saying that any member of the clergy (including the nuns... priests aren't/weren't the only ones doing the abusing) who either participated in the abuse or did not exercise proper leadership to defrock (or de-penguin?) known abusers should be excommunicated from the Church. That being said, my wife and I believe we currently have excellent priests in our parish, and we are satisfied that they are not part of the X%. As such, we support our parish and the parish school our children attend both monetarily and in a volunteer capacity. Fortunately, we're allowed to specify where our monetary donations go, and so while 80% of our donations go to the school or to building and grounds, we do not give to the parish's general fund or the Archdiocese.
Nevertheless, on at least a half-dozen occasions, I have been accused of supporting pedophile priests just because I continue go to mass every Sunday. I don't proselytize, I don't evangelize, I never inject my faith into unrelated discussions, if I ever pray outside the home or church I do so very privately and discreetly, and frankly, these two paragraphs are probably the most I've publicly spoken out about my faith in well over a decade.
My faith is a private journey; it is not influenced or defined by others, but there's a communal aspect to it which I personally believe necessitates a certain level of attendance and participation. As such, I'm not going to let my faith be hijacked by a bunch of a$$holes, be it a pedophile priest or someone pushing an anti-Catholic agenda. My faith is formed around tenets of Catholic doctrine in which - oft-overlooked - there is nothing that even remotely condones the abuse of children; in fact, Catholic doctrine is quite clear on the opposite being true, as documented in both the Old and New Testament, that children are to be welcomed and comforted without exception. Incidentally, it may be the only time recorded in Christian scripture where Jesus advocated death, and it was for those who commit acts against children:
"But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck." - Matthew 18:6
Catholic doctrine is pretty explicit that no harm should ever be laid upon a child, and that is part of the faith that my continued participation supports. I am not supporting those who have bastardized the Church's name; I am not supporting the leadership of those who have failed. And most of all, I don't support the idea that my faith, i.e. my participation, has as much influence on the Church heirarchy as do the fact that they don't receive a cent from my family because at the end of the day, the dollar you could have (but don't) is much more influential than the dollars that walked away years ago.
-
It's a valid point, and I don't disagree with anything you're saying in the first paragraph, but the sentiment of your second paragraph parallels the ignorance of the critics insomuch that they falsely deem a person's faith as "support" of/for the Church.
I am a practicing Catholic, I will be the first to go on record here in saying that any member of the clergy (including the nuns... priests aren't/weren't the only ones doing the abusing) who either participated in the abuse or did not exercise proper leadership to defrock (or de-penguin?) known abusers should be excommunicated from the Church. That being said, my wife and I believe we currently have excellent priests in our parish, and we are satisfied that they are not part of the X%. As such, we support our parish and the parish school our children attend both monetarily and in a volunteer capacity. Fortunately, we're allowed to specify where our monetary donations go, and so while 80% of our donations go to the school or to building and grounds, we do not give to the parish's general fund or the Archdiocese.
Nevertheless, on at least a half-dozen occasions, I have been accused of supporting pedophile priests just because I continue go to mass every Sunday. I don't proselytize, I don't evangelize, I never inject my faith into unrelated discussions, if I ever pray outside the home or church I do so very privately and discreetly, and frankly, these two paragraphs are probably the most I've publicly spoken out about my faith in well over a decade.
My faith is a private journey; it is not influenced or defined by others, but there's a communal aspect to it which I personally believe necessitates a certain level of attendance and participation. As such, I'm not going to let my faith be hijacked by a bunch of a$$holes, be it a pedophile priest or someone pushing an anti-Catholic agenda. My faith is formed around tenets of Catholic doctrine in which - oft-overlooked - there is nothing that even remotely condones the abuse of children; in fact, Catholic doctrine is quite clear on the opposite being true, as documented in both the Old and New Testament, that children are to be welcomed and comforted without exception. Incidentally, it may be the only time recorded in Christian scripture where Jesus advocated death, and it was for those who commit acts against children:
"But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck." - Matthew 18:6
Catholic doctrine is pretty explicit that no harm should ever be laid upon a child, and that is part of the faith that my continued participation supports. I am not supporting those who have bastardized the Church's name; I am not supporting the leadership of those who have failed. And most of all, I don't support the idea that my faith, i.e. my participation, has as much influence on the Church heirarchy as do the fact that they don't receive a cent from my family because at the end of the day, the dollar you could have (but don't) is much more influential than the dollars that walked away years ago.
All fair and I mean this respectfully and not flippantly nor as a judgement....but in this day and age is that enough? Is it enough to separate/minimize your involvement as you have as opposed to actively trying to fight a clear evil within the organization itself. Same goes for harassment in the workplace, systemic racial inequality, etc....is it good enough to condemn it and avoid interactions with the person/people/institutions that perpetrate such bad behavior, or do we have an obligation to move actively engage to right the wrongs? It's a big undetermined for me, how much can one person do and how much should we expect one person to do when faced with these type of institutional rot.
-
Well stated, Benny, and I'm on board with that line of thought. Particularly, I like your distinction about being thoughtful about the way you contribute financially. I think that if each ordinary Catholic takes an increased interest in where their donations are going and how their local parish/diocese are operating, a significant number of the organizational failures that allowed this to happen will be rectified. I sympathize that there is a lot of lumping all Catholics together right now, and in that way, your comparison to Islam is well taken.
-
All fair and I mean this respectfully and not flippantly nor as a judgement....but in this day and age is that enough? Is it enough to separate/minimize your involvement as you have as opposed to actively trying to fight a clear evil within the organization itself. Same goes for harassment in the workplace, systemic racial inequality, etc....is it good enough to condemn it and avoid interactions with the person/people/institutions that perpetrate such bad behavior, or do we have an obligation to move actively engage to right the wrongs? It's a big undetermined for me, how much can one person do and how much should we expect one person to do when faced with these type of institutional rot.
In theory, I suppose there's a lot more I could do. I could write letters, I could start making a ruckus at church functions, take out some radio and billboard ads, start a(nother) religion in protest, send death threats to the pope, perhaps... all of those things might move the needle, but what's to say I could do better than those who have already gone down that well-blazed trail? Probably the best, if not only, chance for me to make a difference is to get me a job at the post office, you know, maybe go to seminary, work real hard, work my way up to bishop, you know what I'm saying? Learn the system a little bit, then I'll rob that motherf#&ker blind.
Here's the question I (also respectfully) ask in response... realistically, what could I - or any individual Catholic in my position - do that would be marginally different? You already have organizations like SNAP, you already have investigations and prosecutions going on, if there's something more that I as an individual can do that's going to make a meaningful difference, I'm all ears. If it was happening in somewhere in my periphery, be damn certain that I'd be searching feverishly for whatever the hell a millstone is. Otherwise, I'm going to let the professionals handle the matter.
I think that addresses the part about clearing the organization of evil, so let me address the part about righting the wrongs... again - and the critics can spin this any way they want, but the absolute, unequivocal truth is that what happened in these abuse scandals had nothing to do with the Catholic faith. I shouldn't have to repeat (but I will) that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that condones - or is even neutral, for that matter - on abuse of children, let alone the cover-ups and conspiracies. What happened was a grotesque manipulation of power and perversion that is not prescribed or promoted by the Catholic faith. With that in mind, what then should I have to do - or better yet, why - to atone for the rogue actions of others who acted far outside the boundaries of shared faith? Implying that I should do anything to right the wrongs of others just because I belong to the same billion-member organization is no different than telling someone wearing a hijab on Wisconsin Avenue to "go do something about that ISIS crap" or (since this concept is not isolated to religion) someone walking up to Bagpiper (or whatever he's calling himself today, Galway Chicken, or something) on Quay Street and telling him to "go fix that Trump crap."
Now, if I were a member of a small, non-denominational church of a couple hundred members that discovered abuse within its walls, then my voice might actually matter, and it would be a completely different story. But you most assuredly can't change the direction of the Nile by pissing in it, as evidenced by all the people who have been pissing in denial for a looooooonnggg time.
-
Who said anything about a unique ability for divine insight?
Look up the definition of "messenger" in most dictionaries and you'd find things such as the following:
a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.
synonyms:courier, runner, envoy, emissary, agent, go-between, message-bearer;
Nothing about divine inspiration....
I look at going to church on Sunday as a reminder/pep talk to be a good person, and it almost always serves that purpose. The message is perfect, though the messengers may not be.
-
Maybe the concept of Eunichism wasn't too far off, hey?
-
I honestly think this has been one of the best Scoop discussions in a long time. Numerous well considered and articulated positions. And all in an environment of mutual respect.
Now my very simplistic two cents.
We live in suburban Chicago with no extended family anywhere near us. So when our kids were young there was always the possible need for an emergency 'home' for them. During that time, we instinctively knew which one or two families we absolutely could/would call at 3 am and be 100% certain our kids would be safe. The sad fact is that we simply couldn't include any parish priest in that list. Mind you, I am not saying anything about any individual person so please don't misinterpret. But the reality is that having to exclude an entire group of people that SHOULD be on such a list deeply saddens me. And that colors my view of the church to this day.
-
In theory, I suppose there's a lot more I could do. I could write letters, I could start making a ruckus at church functions, take out some radio and billboard ads, start a(nother) religion in protest, send death threats to the pope, perhaps... all of those things might move the needle, but what's to say I could do better than those who have already gone down that well-blazed trail? Probably the best, if not only, chance for me to make a difference is to get me a job at the post office, you know, maybe go to seminary, work real hard, work my way up to bishop, you know what I'm saying? Learn the system a little bit, then I'll rob that motherf#&ker blind.
Here's the question I (also respectfully) ask in response... realistically, what could I - or any individual Catholic in my position - do that would be marginally different? You already have organizations like SNAP, you already have investigations and prosecutions going on, if there's something more that I as an individual can do that's going to make a meaningful difference, I'm all ears. If it was happening in somewhere in my periphery, be damn certain that I'd be searching feverishly for whatever the hell a millstone is. Otherwise, I'm going to let the professionals handle the matter.
I think that addresses the part about clearing the organization of evil, so let me address the part about righting the wrongs... again - and the critics can spin this any way they want, but the absolute, unequivocal truth is that what happened in these abuse scandals had nothing to do with the Catholic faith. I shouldn't have to repeat (but I will) that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that condones - or is even neutral, for that matter - on abuse of children, let alone the cover-ups and conspiracies. What happened was a grotesque manipulation of power and perversion that is not prescribed or promoted by the Catholic faith. With that in mind, what then should I have to do - or better yet, why - to atone for the rogue actions of others who acted far outside the boundaries of shared faith? Implying that I should do anything to right the wrongs of others just because I belong to the same billion-member organization is no different than telling someone wearing a hijab on Wisconsin Avenue to "go do something about that ISIS crap" or (since this concept is not isolated to religion) someone walking up to Bagpiper (or whatever he's calling himself today, Galway Chicken, or something) on Quay Street and telling him to "go fix that Trump crap."
Now, if I were a member of a small, non-denominational church of a couple hundred members that discovered abuse within its walls, then my voice might actually matter, and it would be a completely different story. But you most assuredly can't change the direction of the Nile by pissing in it, as evidenced by all the people who have been pissing in denial for a looooooonnggg time.
I don't think any individual, screaming into the wind can do more, my point is more about if all of the individuals separately but collectively reacting to the organization and demanding change. This is independent of the organization in question, whether it be a religious organization, Fortune 500 company, Boy Scouts of America, or students/alumni of Ohio State University, is there a responsibility of the members of an organization to hold that organization to account? You are completely correct that it has nothing to do with the Catholic faith, quite frankly I think this issue needs to be framed as an entirely secular organization/cultural issue and take the religion out of it entirely. Framing it as a secular organizational issue, should the individual members collectively do more to force change within the organization?
-
Maybe the concept of Eunichism wasn't too far off, hey?
AKA The Great Schism
-
I find it ironic that Benny wants mandatory voting yet claims that individuals lack the power to make a difference in the Church.
Talk about your separation of church and state.
-
I find it ironic that Benny wants mandatory voting yet claims that individuals lack the power to make a difference in the Church.
Talk about your separation of church and state.
Thanks, Alanis. You’ve screwed up the definition of irony for a whole generation.
And compulsory voting has nothing to do with an individual making a difference. It has do with refocusing the attention (and money) on issues and real needs, not politics.
-
Urban Meyer knew about abuse, looked the other way, enabled. The Catholic Church knew about abuse, looked the other way, enabled. Buckeye fans stick with their team. Some people leave the church, some stay. Some voters chose to vote for an admitted abuser, enabled. This needs to be a conversation that goes on for decades. Lots of soul searching ahead.
-
Urban Meyer knew about abuse, looked the other way, enabled. The Catholic Church knew about abuse, looked the other way, enabled. Buckeye fans stick with their team. Some people leave the church, some stay. Some voters chose to vote for an admitted abuser, enabled. This needs to be a conversation that goes on for decades. Lots of soul searching ahead.
+10000000
A lot of people today only hear what they want to hear and write off anything outside that bubble is trivial, or #fakenews made up by the dishonest media
-
Thanks, Alanis. You’ve screwed up the definition of irony for a whole generation.
And compulsory voting has nothing to do with an individual making a difference. It has do with refocusing the attention (and money) on issues and real needs, not politics.
Hypocrisy is probably a better word choice than irony. Sorry for the error.
-
Those of us who are atheist (like me) or agnostic or "spiritually non-denominational" -- which combined represent the fastest-growing "belief" group -- often shake our heads at the need for morality to be framed in some kind of religious way by religious leaders.
As in, the only way to be moral is to give oneself fully to Jesus (or whichever god one follows) and his teachings.
I have been asked often how my wife and I taught our kids to be good people if we have "no belief system" - meaning no god to keep us on the straight and narrow. Well, our belief system is that people simply need to be moral and ethical and good because it's right to be moral and ethical and good.
We cringe at the whole idea of religious institutions that need massive hierarchies serving as "morality police." Because all too often, when you peel back the layers of of those hierarchical onions, you find a lot of immoral stink.
Those opposed to large government (and even some who appreciate government's role in things) might see similarities. The bigger the institution gets, the more powerful the people at the top are, and the more bureaucracy is needed to make it work. And when you have powerful rulers and big bureaucracies, you're just inviting bad actors at every level who cast aside the very morals they preach when it comes to their personal behavior.
The Catholic Church, the many Christian megachurches, and the hierarchies of the Muslim, Jewish and Mormon faiths all leap to mind as examples.
I of course am not claiming that non-religious people are immune from immorality. But at least an atheist who lies, cheats, steals, curses, espouses hate, etc, isn't being a hypocrite.
(edited to eliminate my own dopeyness)
-
I of course am not claiming that non-religious people are immune from immorality. But at least an atheist who lies, cheats, steals, curses, espouses hate, etc, isn't being a hypocrite.
Actually he would be if he has said that lying, cheating, stealing, cursing and/or hating is wrong.
Hypocrisy isn't strictly a religious thing.
-
Actually he would be if he has said that lying, cheating, stealing, cursing and/or hating is wrong.
Hypocrisy isn't strictly a religious thing.
You know what, chickadee ... you're right!
I think folks know what I mean, but I definitely should have found another way to phrase that.
-
I of course am not claiming that non-religious people are immune from immorality. But at least an atheist who lies, cheats, steals, curses, espouses hate, etc, isn't being a hypocrite.
Would and atheist Professor allow a student to cheat on his/her exam or would insist that is wrong?
-
Would and atheist Professor allow a student to cheat on his/her exam or would insist that is wrong?
I don't understand your question at all.
But if you're trying to "catch" me having made an illogical statement, I already fessed up to chick that I didn't do a very good job of phrasing what I said.
I'd ask that you not pick out that one sentence, that I already have acknowledged was dopey, and instead focus on what I actually had to say.
-
You know what, chickadee ... you're right!
I think folks know what I mean, but I definitely should have found another way to phrase that.
Mike, I honestly mean no offense, I'm only curious. What did you mean and how would you rephrase it?
-
Hypocrisy is probably a better word choice than irony. Sorry for the error.
Wrong again. Put the thesaurus down and pull out a dictionary.
-
Mike, I honestly mean no offense, I'm only curious. What did you mean and how would you rephrase it?
I should have just never included that sentence. There is nothing worse than an atheist claiming to be holier than thou.
I have just gone back and crossed it out. I didn't take it out because I don't want to be dishonest and pretend I never foolishly said it.
I stand by everything else in the post.
-
Pope Francis accused of covering up now. Some calling for his resignation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-knew-of-abusive-priest-claims-former-vatican-official-carlo-maria-vigano/
-
Pope Francis accused of covering up now. Some calling for his resignation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-knew-of-abusive-priest-claims-former-vatican-official-carlo-maria-vigano/
Not saying that Francis didn't know, but anything Vigano says should be not judged at face value. He's a Benedict ally who set Francis up to meet with Kim Davis which was a pretty embarrassing moment for Francis.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/europe/pope-vigano-resign/index.html
-
Good catch Sultan. This will be interesting to watch.
-
A US bishop has now called for a full investigation. Pope Francis says he will not say a word one way or the other about the claims.
Will other bishops also demand an investigation?
-
Not saying that Francis didn't know, but anything Vigano says should be not judged at face value. He's a Benedict ally who set Francis up to meet with Kim Davis which was a pretty embarrassing moment for Francis.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/europe/pope-vigano-resign/index.html
The chasm between what this scandal means inside the Diocese of Rome vs. outside the walls of the Vatican is perhaps the clearest example of how the church is rotting from the inside out. The highest levels of church leadership are literally unable to fathom how the the Church could be subject to legal and political accountability in western democracies like Ireland and the US.
-
Another coming forward to say he covered it up and Vigano was telling the truth. The church has to find a way to cleanse itself. If that means Francis resigns, so be it. Along with every bishop and cardinal involved.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-nunciature-official-vigano-said-the-truth-38319
-
The chasm between what this scandal means inside the Diocese of Rome vs. outside the walls of the Vatican is perhaps the clearest example of how the church is rotting from the inside out. The highest levels of church leadership are literally unable to fathom how the the Church could be subject to legal and political accountability in western democracies like Ireland and the US.
I think you're on to something.... many, dare I say most, of those inside the Vatican walls do not hail from western democracies, and even amongst those who are, some of those countries may not have been democracies (e.g. Poland) - or were still making the shift to democracy from something much worse - (e.g. Italy, Germany) when they were growing up. [Off-hand, I can count 25 German and Italian-born Cardinals who are old enough to remember WWII.]
I don't know if that's by design or coincidence.
-
A Protestant convert's view. Some good points others not so much.
https://pjmedia.com/faith/why-now-is-the-time-to-convert-to-catholicism/
-
A Protestant convert's view. Some good points others not so much.
https://pjmedia.com/faith/why-now-is-the-time-to-convert-to-catholicism/
Yeah...she lost me with her "heresy" nonsense.
-
A Protestant convert's view. Some good points others not so much.
https://pjmedia.com/faith/why-now-is-the-time-to-convert-to-catholicism/
This is not anything else but some tinfoil cap musings ....
This is not anything else but an LGBTQWTF infiltration of the seminaries (which sure looks intentional) to bring down the greatest institution on earth
-
This is not anything else but some tinfoil cap musings ....
This is not anything else but an LGBTQWTF infiltration of the seminaries (which sure looks intentional) to bring down the greatest institution on earth
Given to us by the same source that gave us the Nobel Prize worthy "96% of Google searches are liberal".
#seedrudgereport
#seeloudobbs
#seepotustwitter
but seriously, follow @mattgertz.
-
A Protestant convert's view. Some good points others not so much.
https://pjmedia.com/faith/why-now-is-the-time-to-convert-to-catholicism/
So 5/6 of her suggestions at the end are actually decent advice (the last one she goes off the deep end a little bit) but her reasoning leading up to it is all terrible. The molestation in the church is an intentional plot by the LGBTQ community to destroy the church? I would love to discuss scripture with her some time, she clearly hasn't spent much time reading it. I hope she finds a way to get rid of all the hate in her heart.
-
So 5/6 of her suggestions at the end are actually decent advice (the last one she goes off the deep end a little bit) but her reasoning leading up to it is all terrible. The molestation in the church is an intentional plot by the LGBTQ community to destroy the church? I would love to discuss scripture with her some time, she clearly hasn't spent much time reading it. I hope she finds a way to get rid of all the hate in her heart.
I'm sure she is super decent. Here is her body of work from the same site 69 posted https://pjmedia.com/columnist/megan-fox/ (https://pjmedia.com/columnist/megan-fox/).
-
I'm sure she is super decent. Here is her body of work from the same site 69 posted https://pjmedia.com/columnist/megan-fox/ (https://pjmedia.com/columnist/megan-fox/).
Wow,she is really a whack job.
And who knew the LGBT community was around a hundred years ago?
-
Can you rearrange the letters in LGTBQRA to spell Illuminati?
-
Balanced article that attempts to address the inner forces within the church on this crisis. What a mess, the church needs a reboot.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pope-catholic-church-divisions-20180827-story,amp.html
-
I just don't get the Catholic Church's obsession with sex.
-
I just don't get the Catholic Church's obsession with sex.
It's a way to control the masses, via population control and by weaponizing it for funding or as leverage against "sinners" going back hundreds of years. Institutional momentum is a helluva thing.
-
It's a way to control the masses, via population control and by weaponizing it for funding or as leverage against "sinners" going back hundreds of years. Institutional momentum is a helluva thing.
I think that's a bit much ... sort of Alex Jones-y as the theory that the LGBTQ community secretly infiltrated seminaries as part of a plot to bring down the church.
The truth is, everybody is obsessed with sex.
-
I think that's a bit much ... sort of Alex Jones-y as the theory that the LGBTQ community secretly infiltrated seminaries as part of a plot to bring down the church.
The truth is, everybody is obsessed with sex.
Actually that undersells it. I am not Catholic. The church I belong to rarely talks about sex, sexual issues, etc. They have no position on birth control, etc.
-
So 5/6 of her suggestions at the end are actually decent advice (the last one she goes off the deep end a little bit) but her reasoning leading up to it is all terrible. The molestation in the church is an intentional plot by the LGBTQ community to destroy the church? I would love to discuss scripture with her some time, she clearly hasn't spent much time reading it. I hope she finds a way to get rid of all the hate in her heart.
Your take was the same as mine. Her proselytizing was over the top. If the allegations about the Pope are true he should resign and Pope Benedict is just as culpable as he should have defrocked McCarrick. Molestation of Children by clergy is the ultimate betrayal and as much as they say they (the hierarchy) are sorry they have done nothing to assure the faithful that they are. In my own Parish our Pastor has made it policy that at least 3 adults from the Parish must be present during activities involving minors and they have to be vetted by the Police department.
-
Actually that undersells it. I am not Catholic. The church I belong to rarely talks about sex, sexual issues, etc. They have no position on birth control, etc.
I've been going to Catholic churches all my life and attended Catholic schools from the time I was seven. I can count on one finger the number of times I recall sex, sexual issues, etc. being discussed during a service, or in any other setting outside health class and PreCana.
Catholic teachings on sexuality are discussed far more often in secular settings - and most often by non-Catholics who object to it.
-
Actually that undersells it. I am not Catholic. The church I belong to rarely talks about sex, sexual issues, etc. They have no position on birth control, etc.
Sounds like you need to get your OT level up.
-
Can you rearrange the letters in LGTBQRA to spell Illuminati?
Only took a few years to get from “gay” to LGTBQRA. I shudder to think where it will be in 10 years.
-
I've been going to Catholic churches all my life and attended Catholic schools from the time I was seven. I can count on one finger the number of times I recall sex, sexual issues, etc. being discussed during a service, or in any other setting outside health class and PreCana.
Catholic teachings on sexuality are discussed far more often in secular settings - and most often by non-Catholics who object to it.
Fair enough. I don't think I'm getting my point across well enough but I will leave it at that.
-
I've been going to Catholic churches all my life and attended Catholic schools from the time I was seven. I can count on one finger the number of times I recall sex, sexual issues, etc. being discussed during a service, or in any other setting outside health class and PreCana.
Catholic teachings on sexuality are discussed far more often in secular settings - and most often by non-Catholics who object to it.
I'm curious if you went to a catholic grade or high school. I agree that almost never hear about sex in the services but I felt like I was reminded daily in catholic school that premarital/safe/gay/oral/anal sex were all sins. It was regularly worked into religion, social studies, and health classes. We also had to take a class called "Values" freshman year where it was pretty well ingrained into us. All the following years we were required to take seminar classes that had varying levels of focus on the topic.
Even at Marquette there are still some student rules that try to enforce these sexual standards on adults. No guests of the opposite sex after certain hours in the dorms. I thought I remember some policies about "unconventional sex" being forbidden but I might be misremembering.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is that the church has all these rules surrounding sex but DOESN'T talk about the why at services. "Because its a sin" is only a convincing answer for so long.
-
I think that's a bit much ... sort of Alex Jones-y as the theory that the LGBTQ community secretly infiltrated seminaries as part of a plot to bring down the church.
The truth is, everybody is obsessed with sex.
I'm speaking from a legacy standpoint. Religions generally, and the Catholic Church specifically used piety as a weapon to control the masses (or that was the theory anyway) including by putting structure around sex. By making sex taboo, so to speak, it also helped fill church coffers (things like purgatory, etc). We're talking middle ages stuff and that legacy has not really been revisited.
-
I'm curious if you went to a catholic grade or high school. I agree that almost never hear about sex in the services but I felt like I was reminded daily in catholic school that premarital/safe/gay/oral/anal sex were all sins. It was regularly worked into religion, social studies, and health classes. We also had to take a class called "Values" freshman year where it was pretty well ingrained into us. All the following years we were required to take seminar classes that had varying levels of focus on the topic.
Even at Marquette there are still some student rules that try to enforce these sexual standards on adults. No guests of the opposite sex after certain hours in the dorms. I thought I remember some policies about "unconventional sex" being forbidden but I might be misremembering.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is that the church has all these rules surrounding sex but DOESN'T talk about the why at services. "Because its a sin" is only a convincing answer for so long.
Plus there are even rules about it within the confines of a marriage. My mind was boggled the first time I had engaged friends tell me about their "marriage course" that they had to complete to be married in a Catholic church.
-
Nothing to do with sex, but interesting nonetheless ...
A local high school football team's QB died tragically a couple weeks ago. They opened the season last Friday and won, easily beating their inferior opponent. The new QB had a big day and the team played well overall.
Afterward, the coach said:
"This just shows how special these kids are. They inspired an entire community. Those kids have been amazing. We wanted to come out and prove to people that God is real."
Well, I've had my doubts all these years, but now I've changed my mind!
-
So 5/6 of her suggestions at the end are actually decent advice (the last one she goes off the deep end a little bit) but her reasoning leading up to it is all terrible. The molestation in the church is an intentional plot by the LGBTQ community to destroy the church? I would love to discuss scripture with her some time, she clearly hasn't spent much time reading it. I hope she finds a way to get rid of all the hate in her heart.
The molestation and sexual abuse is not a plot by the LGBTQ community to destroy the church. This is the work of the devil. Anyone familiar with Pope Leo's 100 year prophecy?
-
Nothing to do with sex, but interesting nonetheless ...
A local high school football team's QB died tragically a couple weeks ago. They opened the season last Friday and won, easily beating their inferior opponent. The new QB had a big day and the team played well overall.
Afterward, the coach said:
"This just shows how special these kids are. They inspired an entire community. Those kids have been amazing. We wanted to come out and prove to people that God is real."
Well, I've had my doubts all these years, but now I've changed my mind!
Hallelujah!
-
Yeah, I got some crap for asking people to "prove" stuff in other threads.
So it's nice to see that this incredible thing now has been proven beyond all doubt!
-
Yeah, I got some crap for asking people to "prove" stuff in other threads.
So it's nice to see that this incredible thing now has been proven beyond all doubt!
As a life long Yankee fan I never had any doubts.
-
I'm speaking from a legacy standpoint. Religions generally, and the Catholic Church specifically used piety as a weapon to control the masses (or that was the theory anyway) including by putting structure around sex. By making sex taboo, so to speak, it also helped fill church coffers (things like purgatory, etc). We're talking middle ages stuff and that legacy has not really been revisited.
I wonder just how much of that is actually true and how much of it Dan Brown simply made up.
-
I'm curious if you went to a catholic grade or high school. I agree that almost never hear about sex in the services but I felt like I was reminded daily in catholic school that premarital/safe/gay/oral/anal sex were all sins. It was regularly worked into religion, social studies, and health classes. We also had to take a class called "Values" freshman year where it was pretty well ingrained into us. All the following years we were required to take seminar classes that had varying levels of focus on the topic.
Even at Marquette there are still some student rules that try to enforce these sexual standards on adults. No guests of the opposite sex after certain hours in the dorms. I thought I remember some policies about "unconventional sex" being forbidden but I might be misremembering.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is that the church has all these rules surrounding sex but DOESN'T talk about the why at services. "Because its a sin" is only a convincing answer for so long.
I went to Catholic grade school and high school. As I said, I don't recall sexuality being brought up at all outside of health classes - and not in a shaming way that I can recall - and some theology lessons on Aquinas and natural law. I, fortunately, never had to take a class on "values" or anything of that nature.
I not once had the impression that the people who taught me or the priests were "obsessed" with sex. It was more like the topic was generally ignored. If they were obsessed about anything, it was the uniform code and the need for absolute silence in the library.
-
I went to public school ... and they told us sex was great!
They encouraged all of us to have sex as early in life as possible and as often as possible. Anal, oral, gay, straight, safe, dangerous, standing on our heads, while singing God Bless America ... and even sometimes all of that simultaneously!!
Sometimes, instead of recess, we'd have sex-cess ... and y'all can just imagine what was going on then!
All you Catholics who didn't go to public school missed out bigly!
-
I went to Catholic grade school and high school. As I said, I don't recall sexuality being brought up at all outside of health classes - and not in a shaming way that I can recall - and some theology lessons on Aquinas and natural law. I, fortunately, never had to take a class on "values" or anything of that nature.
I not once had the impression that the people who taught me or the priests were "obsessed" with sex. It was more like the topic was generally ignored. If they were obsessed about anything, it was the uniform code and the need for absolute silence in the library.
Apart from the theology on Aquinas and natural law, this was exactly my experience as well. Especially the dress code part. God help you if your mom didn't wash your trousers in Woolite or Tide with ColorGuardtm.
-
Plus there are even rules about it within the confines of a marriage. My mind was boggled the first time I had engaged friends tell me about their "marriage course" that they had to complete to be married in a Catholic church.
It's called PreCana and it's actually pretty reasonable, unless you're somehow so insecure in your own beliefs that you're offended by spending an afternoon hearing what the church teaches. In which case, why do you want to get married in a Catholic church anyways? Plenty of banquet halls, country clubs, courthouses and Unitarian chapels out there, you know?
My PreCana (taught by, I kid you not, former Chicago Bear Maury Buford and his wife) was as much about how to deal with finances, the decision of whether and when to have kids, how to resolve conflicts, etc., as it was about Catholic dogma.
What's so boggling, exactly, about the church wanting to give a couple a little premarital counseling and make then more prepared for the journey ahead, before sanctioning their marriage?
-
Here is Gay man's perspective.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/why-men-like-me-should-not-be-priests
-
Here is Gay man's perspective.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/why-men-like-me-should-not-be-priests
Sigh... Pedophiles aren't attracted to one gender or another, they are attracted to childlike figures, usually hairlessness. The reason more boys are affected than girls is because priests have greater access to them and they are easily to manipulate because of the stigma.
The LGBTQ community has nothing to do with pedophilia or what's happening in the church. Anyone trying to connect the two is trying to demonize LGBTQ individuals.
I do agree with his sentiment that gay men should not be priests but not for his reasoning. I don't agree with them and I think they should revisit this teaching, but the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Until that changes, I think it is disrespectful of the church to have a gay man ordained. I hope they relook at the scripture and embrace a more loving and accepting policy but I don't think that will happen in my lifetime.
-
It's called PreCana and it's actually pretty reasonable, unless you're somehow so insecure in your own beliefs that you're offended by spending an afternoon hearing what the church teaches. In which case, why do you want to get married in a Catholic church anyways? Plenty of banquet halls, country clubs, courthouses and Unitarian chapels out there, you know?
My PreCana (taught by, I kid you not, former Chicago Bear Maury Buford and his wife) was as much about how to deal with finances, the decision of whether and when to have kids, how to resolve conflicts, etc., as it was about Catholic dogma.
What's so boggling, exactly, about the church wanting to give a couple a little premarital counseling and make then more prepared for the journey ahead, before sanctioning their marriage?
Exactly
-
I wonder just how much of that is actually true and how much of it Dan Brown simply made up.
You'd be surprised what he did not make up.
There really is a Priory of Sion.
-
It's called PreCana and it's actually pretty reasonable, unless you're somehow so insecure in your own beliefs that you're offended by spending an afternoon hearing what the church teaches. In which case, why do you want to get married in a Catholic church anyways? Plenty of banquet halls, country clubs, courthouses and Unitarian chapels out there, you know?
My PreCana (taught by, I kid you not, former Chicago Bear Maury Buford and his wife) was as much about how to deal with finances, the decision of whether and when to have kids, how to resolve conflicts, etc., as it was about Catholic dogma.
What's so boggling, exactly, about the church wanting to give a couple a little premarital counseling and make then more prepared for the journey ahead, before sanctioning their marriage?
You misunderstand my "objection", it is certainly not against the idea of pre-marriage counseling, which we got through our church, and at a minimum some sort of secular guidance makes sense pre-marriage. It's only within the confines of the "sex question" that I don't get it.
My boggingly was to the sex-based guidance our various friends have received through the PreCana, things like sex is only for the purpose of having kids, no self-love, natural birth control, etc. I get that they are the churches position but to openly advocate them seems silly. They are certainly not mainstream or modern views on sexuality.
-
Sigh... Pedophiles aren't attracted to one gender or another, they are attracted to childlike figures, usually hairlessness. The reason more boys are affected than girls is because priests have greater access to them and they are easily to manipulate because of the stigma.
The LGBTQ community has nothing to do with pedophilia or what's happening in the church. Anyone trying to connect the two is trying to demonize LGBTQ individuals
He was not demonizing the LGBTQ community. All I got from the article is that it would be very difficult for gay men to remain faithful to their vow of celibacy in a community of single men and the Church would be better off if they refrained from recruiting any men like him in his opinion. The article did not just focus on pedophilia but also the problem of gay sex in the seminaries. That was the main complaint against Cardinal McCarrick.
Your point on pedophiles is well taken.
-
You misunderstand my "objection", it is certainly not against the idea of pre-marriage counseling, which we got through our church, and at a minimum some sort of secular guidance makes sense pre-marriage. It's only within the confines of the "sex question" that I don't get it.
My boggingly was to the sex-based guidance our various friends have received through the PreCana, things like sex is only for the purpose of having kids, no self-love, natural birth control, etc. I get that they are the churches position but to openly advocate them seems silly. They are certainly not mainstream or modern views on sexuality.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
But I'm very surprised to learn that someone was taught that sex is only for reproduction, as that's not actually Catholic teaching. The church does oppose non-natural birth control (i.e. the pill, condoms), but it does not teach that every instance must be for the purpose of reproduction or that "natural family planning" is wrong. If it did, post-menopausal women would be barred from having sex. They're not.
Why would a church openly advocating its beliefs be silly? I mean, you don't have to agree with their beliefs. You can find their beliefs silly (I myself find many to be silly). But what's silly about the church openly advocating its beliefs to people wanting to be married in the church?
The silly thing in your example is people wanting to hold their wedding in the church, and then being offended/bothered/surprised when the church wants them to learn church teachings about marriage.
"Hey we want to use your pretty building, but don't make us learn what you're all about."
-
Sigh... Pedophiles aren't attracted to one gender or another, they are attracted to childlike figures, usually hairlessness. The reason more boys are affected than girls is because priests have greater access to them and they are easily to manipulate because of the stigma.
This is only from a google search, but the studies I saw sighted disagreed - pedophiles are indeed usually gender specific in their attractions. In the general population heterosexual preference was approximately 20:1. Among pedophiles, 11:1. Girls are molested twice as often as boys, but the number would be higher if pedophiles (almost always men) had more access to girls.
-
Sorry if I misunderstood.
But I'm very surprised to learn that someone was taught that sex is only for reproduction, as that's not actually Catholic teaching. The church does oppose non-natural birth control (i.e. the pill, condoms), but it does not teach that every instance must be for the purpose of reproduction or that "natural family planning" is wrong. If it did, post-menopausal women would be barred from having sex. They're not.
Why would a church openly advocating its beliefs be silly? I mean, you don't have to agree with their beliefs. You can find their beliefs silly (I myself find many to be silly). But what's silly about the church openly advocating its beliefs to people wanting to be married in the church?
The silly thing in your example is people wanting to hold their wedding in the church, and then being offended/bothered/surprised when the church wants them to learn church teachings about marriage.
"Hey we want to use your pretty building, but don't make us learn what you're all about."
I'd like to ask a question to you and other Catholics. I have been very harsh on the Catholic Church and its leaders over the sex scandal. I know I would have quit the Church immediately when I found out the allegations were true.
However, I have never questioned the Church's beliefs or the beliefs of Catholics, in general. Only the institution.
So, my question is, why do you continue to support a corrupt organization? I was raised in an Evangelical Church, but quit cold turkey over their response to the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. My religious beliefs didn't change much, but as I see what the churches are doing now, I feel even better about the decision.
If my question is out of bounds, don't be shy about letting me know.
-
I'd like to ask a question to you and other Catholics. I have been very harsh on the Catholic Church and its leaders over the sex scandal. I know I would have quit the Church immediately when I found out the allegations were true.
However, I have never questioned the Church's beliefs or the beliefs of Catholics, in general. Only the institution.
So, my question is, why do you continue to support a corrupt organization? I was raised in an Evangelical Church, but quit cold turkey over their response to the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. My religious beliefs didn't change much, but as I see what the churches are doing now, I feel even better about the decision.
If my question is out of bounds, don't be shy about letting me know.
I didn't leave the Church. It left me.
-
This is only from a google search, but the studies I saw sighted disagreed - pedophiles are indeed usually gender specific in their attractions. In the general population heterosexual preference was approximately 20:1. Among pedophiles, 11:1. Girls are molested twice as often as boys, but the number would be higher if pedophiles (almost always men) had more access to girls.
As I explained earlier in the thread, there is a difference between pedophiles and predators who target young children. Pedophiles are attracted to childlike body types, specifically hairlessness. They might have a gender preference but their sexual orientation is to children. They are not homo or heterosexuals. They are not attracted to adults of the same gender of their preference in children.
Predators who target young children are a separate category. They get off on power, control and domination of their victims. They target children because they happen to be the easiest targets. These are homo and heterosexuals, the majority being heterosexuals.
You are correct that more girls are the victims of child abuse in general (though it's generally believed that crimes against boys are much more under-reported) I was speaking about the Catholic Church scandal specifically, though honestly I don't know that's true. Whenever I read about the church sex scandal it seems like the focus is on male victims but I haven't actually seen numbers or data to back that up. So mea culpa on that one.
-
I'd like to ask a question to you and other Catholics. I have been very harsh on the Catholic Church and its leaders over the sex scandal. I know I would have quit the Church immediately when I found out the allegations were true.
However, I have never questioned the Church's beliefs or the beliefs of Catholics, in general. Only the institution.
So, my question is, why do you continue to support a corrupt organization? I was raised in an Evangelical Church, but quit cold turkey over their response to the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. My religious beliefs didn't change much, but as I see what the churches are doing now, I feel even better about the decision.
If my question is out of bounds, don't be shy about letting me know.
You can choose to leave, choose to conform, or choose to fight to make it better. I think the Catholic Church is worth fighting to make better. However, everyone needs to make that decision for themselves. I have no judgement for those who choose to leave or conform. I no longer attend Catholic services, I just can't get what I need spiritually at this point in my life there. But I do still consider myself Catholic and stay involved in a catholic based service organization.
-
You can choose to leave, choose to conform, or choose to fight to make it better. I think the Catholic Church is worth fighting to make better. However, everyone needs to make that decision for themselves. I have no judgement for those who choose to leave or conform. I no longer attend Catholic services, I just can't get what I need spiritually at this point in my life there. But I do still consider myself Catholic and stay involved in a catholic based service organization.
Thank you, TAMU. You have given me something to ponder with your answer.
-
Sorry if I misunderstood.
But I'm very surprised to learn that someone was taught that sex is only for reproduction, as that's not actually Catholic teaching. The church does oppose non-natural birth control (i.e. the pill, condoms), but it does not teach that every instance must be for the purpose of reproduction or that "natural family planning" is wrong. If it did, post-menopausal women would be barred from having sex. They're not.
Why would a church openly advocating its beliefs be silly? I mean, you don't have to agree with their beliefs. You can find their beliefs silly (I myself find many to be silly). But what's silly about the church openly advocating its beliefs to people wanting to be married in the church?
The silly thing in your example is people wanting to hold their wedding in the church, and then being offended/bothered/surprised when the church wants them to learn church teachings about marriage.
"Hey we want to use your pretty building, but don't make us learn what you're all about."
You are right, they absolutely can share their beliefs and also right that I think in this area their beliefs are silly. One of the stories I was told about a couple who got up during this weekend to talk about the rhythm method and advocate for it, the couple had five kids but the wife had some form of cancer recently (I believe breast cancer but don't quote me) but was in remission. However if she got pregnant again the cancer would more than likely come back and yet they were still using the rhythm method. That is just completely bonkers in my mind. You add in things like the inventor of the birth control pill created it in such a way as intended to be a "natural" form of birth control and the Vatican altered it's definition of natural to mean no one can intercede in the physical act in anyway is also bonkers in my mind.
At the end of the day, I still struggle to understand how an organization (not just just a religion) has a fair number of rules/beliefs most people in the organization don't believe or adhere to AND it has an on-going scandal of the nature the Catholic church does and the members just keep chugging along. I'm not judging it, I respect everyone's faith, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to ME. I also have no other connection to the Catholic faith then having attended a few masses as a kid because my mom wanted to me experience different religions and having attended MU....so I'm an outside to it and I get that.
-
So, my question is, why do you continue to support a corrupt organization? I was raised in an Evangelical Church, but quit cold turkey over their response to the AIDS epidemic in the 80s. My religious beliefs didn't change much, but as I see what the churches are doing now, I feel even better about the decision.
If my question is out of bounds, don't be shy about letting me know.
Not out of bounds, but I just don't by the premise. I don't believe my attendance at a Mass means I support the corrupt aspects of the Catholic organization (which is different from the faith) any more than my decision to stand for the national anthem means I support the separation of families at the border or any other terrible/evil/misguided policy of our government.
I believe I can respect and appreciate the faith and traditions of Catholicism while also abhorring the evil deeds committed by some church leaders, just as I believe I can respect and appreciate my country while also abhorring the evil deeds committed by some of its leaders.
-
Not out of bounds, but I just don't by the premise. I don't believe my attendance at a Mass means I support the corrupt aspects of the Catholic organization (which is different from the faith) any more than my decision to stand for the national anthem means I support the separation of families at the border or any other terrible/evil/misguided policy of our government.
I believe I can respect and appreciate the faith and traditions of Catholicism while also abhorring the evil deeds committed by some church leaders, just as I believe I can respect and appreciate my country while also abhorring the evil deeds committed by some of its leaders.
What about Tithing....does funding the organization change that?
-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/spm-straph-parish-wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20084333/208.mp3
Here’s a link to a homily from a priest there in Wisc that may catch some of you up on various details of this situation and clarify what the issues are. I know in my Athiest days listening to religous talk/preach drove me crazy due to my bias towards religions but if you choose to listen and can get over the preachyness you will come out better informed.
It’s about 25 mins long and I recommend enduring till the end...
-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/spm-straph-parish-wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20084333/208.mp3
Here’s a link to a homily from a priest there in Wisc that may catch some of you up on various details of this situation and clarify what the issues are. I know in my Athiest days listening to religous talk/preach drove me crazy due to my bias towards religions but if you choose to listen and can get over the preachyness you will come out better informed.
It’s about 25 mins long and I recommend enduring till the end...
noble:
Just curious ... are your "atheist days" past? If so, what convinced you to return to religion? If you don't want to talk about it publicly, feel free to PM me. If you don't want to talk about it at all, that's obviously cool, too.
-
What about Tithing....does funding the organization change that?
The easy response there is, do you pay taxes? Does that make up implicit in everything the government does?
The money donated to the parishes, for the most part, stays at parish level. It goes to upkeep for the buildings, pay the bills, pay for the rectory etc. It also goes to outreach programs in which the parish participates. Money that feeds and clothes the homeless. Money that supports local families in need. Money that helps families that can't afford it go to Catholic school. Many parishes have what is essentially a sister parish they help support in other countries, collection money goes in that direction as well.
I am a Catholic. And I am completely appalled at what has happened in the Church. But in no way has that impacted my beliefs in what the Church teaches. As a Catholic (in my opinion at least), if you truly believe in what the Church teaches, especially in regards to the Sacraments, it isn't something you can just substitute or replicate on your own. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the only places you can receive Eucharist and Reconciliation. Christ himself founded what has become to be known as the Catholic Church and he promised that the "gates of hell shall not avail against you". If I am to be worthy of the words of Christ, I cannot just turn away and run and abandon the Church he founded because of the actions of evil. It is up to me, as well as my brothers and sisters in faith, to fight for the Church. It is up to us to be the counterbalance to evil with our actions, with our spirit and our love. I don't believe that the Lord would abandon me at the time when I need his help, so nor shall I abandon his Church.
I am also, for whatever it is worth, an eternal optimist. I have always believed in the goodness of people, and always tried to see the best in them. While this has ended up burning me from time to time, it is the way that I am. I believe in the goodness of the Catholic Church. I look around me at the world and cannot help but see all the good that has been done by the Church, and as a result of the actions of the Church. The Catholic Church has existed for over 2000 years. It is made up of people. Corruption has always been in the Church because humans will always succumb to the temptations that exist. Even in the Church fathers, we see examples of how sin leads up astray. Paul was famously persecuting Christians, to the point where he is in some sources credited for the first martyrdom. Peter denied Christ 3 times out of fear. Judas turned Christ over for crucifixion out of greed. Corruption is part of the Church because the Church is made up of humanity. There is no running or hiding from that, anywhere I would turn.
Sorry for the long, rambling, possibly even nonsensical response. I didn't really pre-think before I typed and I am not as eloquent on the topic as I should be.
I am completely disgusted, abhorred and hurt by what has happened in the Church. But in the Church I still find goodness, peace, forgiveness, strength, mercy, hope and love. In the Church I still find The Lord. I still find Christ. I still find the Holy Spirit. I can look the the Blessed Mother and the Saints for examples, for love and for prayers. Those are not things from which I can walk away.
-
The easy response there is, do you pay taxes? Does that make up implicit in everything the government does?
The money donated to the parishes, for the most part, stays at parish level. It goes to upkeep for the buildings, pay the bills, pay for the rectory etc. It also goes to outreach programs in which the parish participates. Money that feeds and clothes the homeless. Money that supports local families in need. Money that helps families that can't afford it go to Catholic school. Many parishes have what is essentially a sister parish they help support in other countries, collection money goes in that direction as well.
I am a Catholic. And I am completely appalled at what has happened in the Church. But in no way has that impacted my beliefs in what the Church teaches. As a Catholic (in my opinion at least), if you truly believe in what the Church teaches, especially in regards to the Sacraments, it isn't something you can just substitute or replicate on your own. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the only places you can receive Eucharist and Reconciliation. Christ himself founded what has become to be known as the Catholic Church and he promised that the "gates of hell shall not avail against you". If I am to be worthy of the words of Christ, I cannot just turn away and run and abandon the Church he founded because of the actions of evil. It is up to me, as well as my brothers and sisters in faith, to fight for the Church. It is up to us to be the counterbalance to evil with our actions, with our spirit and our love. I don't believe that the Lord would abandon me at the time when I need his help, so nor shall I abandon his Church.
I am also, for whatever it is worth, an eternal optimist. I have always believed in the goodness of people, and always tried to see the best in them. While this has ended up burning me from time to time, it is the way that I am. I believe in the goodness of the Catholic Church. I look around me at the world and cannot help but see all the good that has been done by the Church, and as a result of the actions of the Church. The Catholic Church has existed for over 2000 years. It is made up of people. Corruption has always been in the Church because humans will always succumb to the temptations that exist. Even in the Church fathers, we see examples of how sin leads up astray. Paul was famously persecuting Christians, to the point where he is in some sources credited for the first martyrdom. Peter denied Christ 3 times out of fear. Judas turned Christ over for crucifixion out of greed. Corruption is part of the Church because the Church is made up of humanity. There is no running or hiding from that, anywhere I would turn.
Sorry for the long, rambling, possibly even nonsensical response. I didn't really pre-think before I typed and I am not as eloquent on the topic as I should be.
I am completely disgusted, abhorred and hurt by what has happened in the Church. But in the Church I still find goodness, peace, forgiveness, strength, mercy, hope and love. In the Church I still find The Lord. I still find Christ. I still find the Holy Spirit. I can look the the Blessed Mother and the Saints for examples, for love and for prayers. Those are not things from which I can walk away.
Thanks for that insight, buck. Although I am an atheist, I like talking about religion, and I like hearing why others "do the religion thing."
My one nit would be with your opening line:
The easy response there is, do you pay taxes? Does that make up implicit in everything the government does?
You are required to pay taxes. If you choose not to, you will get in trouble, maybe even go to jail.
You absolutely do not have to tithe. You choose to do so.
-
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the only places you can receive Eucharist and Reconciliation.
Uh...what?
-
What about Tithing....does funding the organization change that?
Tithing is more of a thing in the non-denominational Christian and prosperity-gospel churches. Personally, I don't know of any Catholics who tithe.
Here's a mind blower for the critics, and I can't believe that no one has called me out on it yet, either...
Don't you think the victims deserve compensation? If so, wouldn't supporting the church financially be the right thing to do?
-
Sultan, you have to see Buck's comment through the eyes of a faithful Catholic. It is a pretty fundamental belief of Catholicism, that the only churches that have apostolic succession is the Catholic and the Orthodox and therefore believe those two churches are the only ones with legitimate Eucharist and Reconciliation.
-
Sultan, you have to see Buck's comment through the eyes of a faithful Catholic. It is a pretty fundamental belief of Catholicism, that the only churches that have apostolic succession is the Catholic and the Orthodox and therefore believe those two churches are the only ones with legitimate Eucharist and Reconciliation.
Oh I understand. I find that mindset to be flawed.
-
Sultan, you have to see Buck's comment through the eyes of a faithful Catholic. It is a pretty fundamental belief of Catholicism, that the only churches that have apostolic succession is the Catholic and the Orthodox and therefore believe those two churches are the only ones with legitimate Eucharist and Reconciliation.
Man dies and goes to heaven. While getting the tour from St. Peter, he sees people of all denominations living together in happy communion. Then he sees a section with high walls and no windows. He asks St. Peter, "what's that section over there?" St. Peter says "Oh, that's where the good Catholics go when they die. They like to believe they're the only ones up here."
-
I do fully understand why Catholics can be both disgusted with how the Church dealt with this issue yet still be part of the church. If you care deeply about something, you try to fix it. That mindset makes perfect sense to me.
-
Man dies and goes to heaven. While getting the tour from St. Peter, he sees people of all denominations living together in happy communion. Then he sees a section with high walls and no windows. He asks St. Peter, "what's that section over there?" St. Peter says "Oh, that's where the good Catholics go when they die. They like to believe they're the only ones up here."
I know you are being cute, but that isn't it at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes in the salvation of all people, whether they are Catholic or not. I have heard this analogy, If I get sick and go to the doctor and get medicine, I will have a good chance of getting well. If you get sick and do not go to the doctor, you very well may get well, it will just be a little more difficult for you. The Sacraments afford Grace that acts as medicine for the soul. That is in no way to say that people of any other system of belief would be precluded from salvation.
And my comment about Eucharist and Reconciliation were not meant to be slights or inflammatory at all. I may be wrong here, but I thought that most protestant denominations didn't believe in Eucharist being Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. I also thought that most protestants do not see the need for Sacramental reconciliation. Sorry if I was mis-informed. I am by no means a scholar on protestant teachings.
-
Man dies and goes to heaven. While getting the tour from St. Peter, he sees people of all denominations living together in happy communion. Then he sees a section with high walls and no windows. He asks St. Peter, "what's that section over there?" St. Peter says "Oh, that's where the good Catholics go when they die. They like to believe they're the only ones up here."
I have heard this joke many times, with nearly every Christian denomination as the punchline, but usually Baptists.
Earlier in the joke, the tour usually goes past a room where people are partying and drinking. St. Peter says, "that's where all the Catholics are".
-
I know you are being cute, but that isn't it at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes in the salvation of all people, whether they are Catholic or not. I have heard this analogy, If I get sick and go to the doctor and get medicine, I will have a good chance of getting well. If you get sick and do not go to the doctor, you very well may get well, it will just be a little more difficult for you. The Sacraments afford Grace that acts as medicine for the soul. That is in no way to say that people of any other system of belief would be precluded from salvation.
And my comment about Eucharist and Reconciliation were not meant to be slights or inflammatory at all. I may be wrong here, but I thought that most protestant denominations didn't believe in Eucharist being Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. I also thought that most protestants do not see the need for Sacramental reconciliation. Sorry if I was mis-informed. I am by no means a scholar on protestant teachings.
My good friend growing, his dad was a Congregationalist Minister (the Puritans) and they have communion only once a month.
-
I know you are being cute, but that isn't it at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes in the salvation of all people, whether they are Catholic or not. I have heard this analogy, If I get sick and go to the doctor and get medicine, I will have a good chance of getting well. If you get sick and do not go to the doctor, you very well may get well, it will just be a little more difficult for you. The Sacraments afford Grace that acts as medicine for the soul. That is in no way to say that people of any other system of belief would be precluded from salvation.
And my comment about Eucharist and Reconciliation were not meant to be slights or inflammatory at all. I may be wrong here, but I thought that most protestant denominations didn't believe in Eucharist being Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. I also thought that most protestants do not see the need for Sacramental reconciliation. Sorry if I was mis-informed. I am by no means a scholar on protestant teachings.
That is interesting, you were taught very differently than I was (in case you missed it earlier, I'm a Catholic). I was taught that only way to receive salvation was through Catholic baptism. The exceptions being if you had a true intent/desire to be baptized but died before it could happen, if you were killed for your faith before being baptized, or if through "no fault of your own" were ignorant of the gospel but lived out the teachings of the gospel. Its been a while since I dusted off the old catechism so I could certainly be misremembering or just raised in a more conservative parish.
I have heard this joke many times, with nearly every Christian denomination as the punchline, but usually Baptists.
Earlier in the joke, the tour usually goes past a room where people are partying and drinking. St. Peter says, "that's where all the Catholics are".
Personally have only heard it this way. Told to me be a Catholic priest! I do like the added bit about partying and drinking. Got to add gambling too!
-
That is interesting, you were taught very differently than I was (in case you missed it earlier, I'm a Catholic). I was taught that only way to receive salvation was through Catholic baptism. The exceptions being if you had a true intent/desire to be baptized but died before it could happen, if you were killed for your faith before being baptized, or if through "no fault of your own" were ignorant of the gospel but lived out the teachings of the gospel. Its been a while since I dusted off the old catechism so I could certainly be misremembering or just raised in a more conservative parish.
Here is a pretty solid explanation.
https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-what-of-salvation-outside-the-church/
-
Here is a pretty solid explanation.
https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-a-priest-what-of-salvation-outside-the-church/
Thanks for sharing. I think the crossroads for many people is described in your article here:
Where it gets tricky is when we speak of people who have heard of Christianity, have heard of the Catholic Church, are aware of some of its doctrines and practices, etc., and yet they don’t join it or even actively reject it. Do they have a chance at salvation? It depends.
It depends on how accurate their knowledge of the Church is, on what their intentions were, or whether they were influenced by the scandalous lives of Catholics.
What I taught in Catholic school and the more common message I have gotten from priests and other Catholics is something along the lines of "if they've heard of the Catholic church but choose not to get baptized than they cannot get salvation." With the size of the church and the ability of information to be shared in today's world, that essentially means that every one who is not Catholic cannot receive salvation.
This priest seems to have a more open interpretation and I really appreciated the next line after the bit I quoted above.
Only God knows the human heart, and only he alone can really judge the state of a soul.
I think this is absolutely correct and a lesson we often forget.
-
Thanks for sharing. I think the crossroads for many people is described in your article here:
What I taught in Catholic school and the more common message I have gotten from priests and other Catholics is something along the lines of "if they've heard of the Catholic church but choose not to get baptized than they cannot get salvation." With the size of the church and the ability of information to be shared in today's world, that essentially means that every one who is not Catholic cannot receive salvation.
This priest seems to have a more open interpretation and I really appreciated the next line after the bit I quoted above.
I think this is absolutely correct and a lesson we often forget.
No problem. And I am glad it was helpful. I think a lot of the misunderstandings are because things are worded very particularly and that causes confusion.
To address the bolded, it is also my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian Baptisms as validly Sacramental.
-
No problem. And I am glad it was helpful. I think a lot of the misunderstandings are because things are worded very particularly and that causes confusion.
To address the bolded, it is also my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian Baptisms as validly Sacramental.
Chuckler, I wanna thank you for your replies here, as well as TAMU, Pakuni, and a few others.
Discussing religious beliefs is always a field filled with landmines, but you guys really answered a lot of the questions I had.
-
Chuckler, I wanna thank you for your replies here, as well as TAMU, Pakuni, and a few others.
Discussing religious beliefs is always a field filled with landmines, but you guys really answered a lot of the questions I had.
You are welcome. Not sure what I would call insight, but it is what is in my brain.
-
One can support the causes of the church, helping the poor, the charitable works, the hospitals and the like, while still condemning the hierarchy.
We give donations, because the money is used for things we support. It is one of the reasons why boycotting is not something we support, because it hurts other people, too. Usually the people on the lower end.
-
You are right, they absolutely can share their beliefs and also right that I think in this area their beliefs are silly. One of the stories I was told about a couple who got up during this weekend to talk about the rhythm method and advocate for it, the couple had five kids but the wife had some form of cancer recently (I believe breast cancer but don't quote me) but was in remission. However if she got pregnant again the cancer would more than likely come back and yet they were still using the rhythm method. That is just completely bonkers in my mind. You add in things like the inventor of the birth control pill created it in such a way as intended to be a "natural" form of birth control and the Vatican altered it's definition of natural to mean no one can intercede in the physical act in anyway is also bonkers in my mind.
At the end of the day, I still struggle to understand how an organization (not just just a religion) has a fair number of rules/beliefs most people in the organization don't believe or adhere to AND it has an on-going scandal of the nature the Catholic church does and the members just keep chugging along. I'm not judging it, I respect everyone's faith, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to ME. I also have no other connection to the Catholic faith then having attended a few masses as a kid because my mom wanted to me experience different religions and having attended MU....so I'm an outside to it and I get that.
For someone who's "not judging it" this post contains an awful lot of judgement.
-
No problem. And I am glad it was helpful. I think a lot of the misunderstandings are because things are worded very particularly and that causes confusion.
To address the bolded, it is also my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian Baptisms as validly Sacramental.
[/color]
Yet they don't recognize marriages, and I'm a practicing Catholic that still goes to weekly Mass.
-
Fact. Before my 11 year old was baptized, and after nearly 15 years of marriage, the then new pastor of our parish was going to refuse to baptize him because my wife and I had not gotten married in a Catholic Church. Talk about silly. I had an enjoyable 20 minutes insulting everything about that and trying to get him to answer whether my then 12 year old daughter's baptism was legitimate. Ultimately, I jumped through the hoop. But letting my post childbirth bride know that according to the church I could walk away clean was probably not wise.
-
Fact. Before my 11 year old was baptized, and after nearly 15 years of marriage, the then new pastor of our parish was going to refuse to baptize him because my wife and I had not gotten married in a Catholic Church. Talk about silly. I had an enjoyable 20 minutes insulting everything about that and trying to get him to answer whether my then 12 year old daughter's baptism was legitimate. Ultimately, I jumped through the hoop. But letting my post childbirth bride know that according to the church I could walk away clean was probably not wise.
But it probably seemed pretty funny at the time. :-[
-
Fact. Before my 11 year old was baptized, and after nearly 15 years of marriage, the then new pastor of our parish was going to refuse to baptize him because my wife and I had not gotten married in a Catholic Church. Talk about silly. I had an enjoyable 20 minutes insulting everything about that and trying to get him to answer whether my then 12 year old daughter's baptism was legitimate. Ultimately, I jumped through the hoop. But letting my post childbirth bride know that according to the church I could walk away clean was probably not wise.
Are you saying the Catholic church doesn't recognize vows taken outside the church as valid marriages? I thought/assumed they just didn't recognize them as checking off the 'marriage as a sacrament' box, but they were still valid marriages.
-
No problem. And I am glad it was helpful. I think a lot of the misunderstandings are because things are worded very particularly and that causes confusion.
To address the bolded, it is also my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes all Christian Baptisms as validly Sacramental.
Except the Mormons.
Are you saying the Catholic church doesn't recognize vows taken outside the church as valid marriages? I thought/assumed they just didn't recognize them as checking off the 'marriage as a sacrament' box, but they were still valid marriages.
You assumption is correct. If you’ve been married by another denominational church previously, but want to remarry in the Catholic Church, you still need to get the previous marriage annulled or whatever the denomination’s equivalent of annulment is. So it’s recognized.
However, if you were married by a justice of the peace, you are considered unmarried by Catholic doctrine and may be married or remarried in the church at your heart’s content.
-
You assumption is correct. If you’ve been married by another denominational church previously, but want to remarry in the Catholic Church, you still need to get the previous marriage annulled or whatever the denomination’s equivalent of annulment is. So it’s recognized.
However, if you were married by a justice of the peace, you are considered unmarried by Catholic doctrine and may be married or remarried in the church at your heart’s content.
Thank you, i didn't know that. I was baffled that it took my father-in-law so long to warm up to our wedding ceremony. I just assumed that it was then that he realized I was atheist, it was probably that plus his view that we were not having a "real" wedding (especially since a friend performed the ceremony and not even a JP).
-
That should be a thread. Stupid stuff we said to our spouses that was really funny in our heads but less so when our spouses heard it.
-
That should be a thread. Stupid stuff we said to our spouses that was really funny in our heads but less so when our spouses heard it.
Yeah, it was funny when we said it and funny now. Right after we said those things?
Not so much.
Women just don’t have a sense of humor. If you don’t believe that, just say it to your wife. She’ll prove you right ?-(
-
Part of the wife handbook is the eye roll with the sideways glare of utter contempt. I thank God every day that the pool of available middle aged men worth replacing me with is nearly nonexistent.
-
I thank God every day that the pool of available middle aged men worth replacing me with is nearly nonexistent.
Hahahahah! Amen brother!
-
For someone who's "not judging it" this post contains an awful lot of judgement.
Where you stand depends on where you sit
-
It is only getting worse.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/george-neumayr-cdl-wuerl-is-even-now-covering-up-for-a-priest-who-abused-te
-
Didn't want to start a new thread, but we had a Marquette mention today:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-midwest-jesuits-abusers-list-released-20181207-story.html (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-midwest-jesuits-abusers-list-released-20181207-story.html)
No names given in the article (or details of any kind, really), but at some point after 1955, two Jesuits with credible accusations of abuse had been assigned to MU.
-
Here's the list referenced in the article.
http://jesuitscentralsouthern.org/Story?Feature=-List-of-Jesuits-with-Credible-Accusations-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-a-Minor&TN=PROJECT-20181130120107050811032329
The two Jesuits at Marquette were:
Burton J Fraser, born 1899, ordained 1935, estimated time frame of abuse 1950s, died in 1971 before being removed from ministry.
Francis Landwermeyer, born 1934, ordained 1966, estimated time frame of abuse 1960s/70s, removed from ministry in 2010, died in 2018.
I don't have data on when they were at Marquette. Anyone happen to know them?
There were also two at Marquette High.
-
Didn't know where else to put this...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges
-
Didn't know where else to put this...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges
The smoke just keeps billowing from an institution corrupt to its core.