Pennsylvania Grand Jury report on abuse

[GGGG]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[MUBurrow]

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. 

[Benny B]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Maybe the concept of Eunichism wasn't too far off, hey?

[jsglow]

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.   

[mu03eng]

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?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Maybe the concept of Eunichism wasn't too far off, hey?

AKA The Great Schism

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[tower912]

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.

[NWarsh]

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

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[MU82]

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)

[warriorchick]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[muwarrior69]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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?

[Benny B]

Hypocrisy is probably a better word choice than irony.  Sorry for the error.

Wrong again. Put the thesaurus down and pull out a dictionary. 

[MU82]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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/

[GGGG]

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