BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 12:54 PM

While I agree with the main thrust of your argument Steve I would point out that the Scottish Cardinal has not been accused of anything illegal. The complaints against him are of lewd and offensive behaviour towards priests. Reprehensible certainly, and who knows what may yet come to light, but recognising your forensic desire for accuracy I did not feel that we should overstate the case.
On the general question of individual/institutional responsibility I believe you are absolutely right, but we see institutions other than the Catholic church failing to answer for serious wrongdoing - recent scandals in the NHS for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 12:14 PM

A problem seldom addressed is that of hammering the institution and not the individuals who commit crimes while under that institution's protective umbrella.

You've sort of answered your own question. It seems to me that, in the case of child abuse by priests and nuns, there is insufficient sanction imposed on both individuals and institution. If the activities are institutionally-entrenched (for example by hiding or protecting miscreants, or denying the existence of wrongdoing by the authorities), that will serve to perpetuate the wrongdoing. It will just carry on. Not enough wrongdoers, or people in authority, are being properly brought to book Just being allowed to quietly step down, or be moved to a distant parish, is woeful. There are priests around who have been moved in that way who, in any other walk of life, would be festering in jail. I heard the Scottish ex-cardinal described as "brave" by his colleagues. What they should have said that he was lying abuser who had serially misused his powerful position to exploit the vulnerable. Brave my arse. He got found out, decades after his offences, otherwise he'd be in Rome right now voting for a new pope. You can fondle little boys for decades and probably still get away with it. So this will go on and on. Surely there comes a point when a very large and influential body such as the Catholic church must be held to account in a major public enquiry. Internal corrections are proving to be not enough. There is institutional failure on a large scale. When this happened apropos of racism among police officers in London's Metropolitan Police, the organisation was required, under public scrutiny, to put its house in order. There has been good progress as a result (though we still have to go all the way). Until the Church is obliged to accept detailed public scrutiny of all its dealings, including financial, this problem will persist. There is too much secrecy and too much denial going on. You deny, deny and deny until you get found out. I can't think of anything more rotten than that in an organisation that claims to be teaching Jesus's message.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:27 AM

John P, please correct me if I have misread your post but you seem to be equating involvement in politics with corruption. You are absolutely right to condemn the buying of influence, but one can engage with the democratic process in a perfectly legal and moral way. I would argue that, because religions are all about people, they have a duty to get involved in politics.
As regards the point of Catholicism I suppose the basic answer is that, as with other religions, people find a need for it. One could argue that such a need is rooted in self delusion, indoctrination or whatever but there are over a billion Catholics and I remain to be convinced that they are all in some way deluded.
The church has been around for a long time and I am not in a position to say whether the world is better or worse for its existence. I do know that most Catholics of my acquaintance make a positive contribution to their communities. I also know people who have no faith and make equally valuable contributions. I am not sure what one can draw from that. It could be argued that if all people lived their lives in genuine accord with gospel values and never offended against those values the world would be a much better place, but we are all fallible and that's never going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:18 AM

An interesting perspective 999.

An additional thought, where wrong deeds are significant in number (and occur over time) in any organization, there are likely those who played some part in it that were promoted to high positions in that organization. Quite often, these individuals play a role in ensuring that the issues are not addressed in a manner that will reflect on them individually.

Is it logical to rule out a factor that some percentage of those people (those that offended, or enabled it to happen and continue) have not been promoted to high positions within the RC church? I would expect that the percentage would increase where the time period is significant and the turn over of staff is low (induviduals serve to old age). Regardless of the standing of the organization (cops, military, and even religious groups), it is not normal in human nature to desire to be found out and held to account.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:15 AM

(and I see 2 more responses in a similar vein while I was composing)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:13 AM

Joe... you said (late last night or early this morning Mudcat time):

"Somebody said churches shouldn't be involved in politics. I disagree." And the Constitution also disagrees.

Knowing you, and reading the rest of the paragraph, I understand what you are getting at - but I must take issue with the phrasing. I would say that it is perfectly fine, in theory,for religious people to involved in politics, but the logical extension of that is that any off-the-wall fundamentalist with the most extreme views can 'be involved'. Obviously, in the USA, that IS how it works. (Pat Robertson once ran for president.) What is not advisable is for them to do it in the name of their church. Is this nit-picking your statement? Perhaps- but I think it's an important concern.

The nun in Sacramento or your boss the nun.... or you.. who have valuable contributions to make to society, should not be constrained or ignored because they are known to be religious, but I always hope that their message and their goals will be couched in a manner that says "this is a good thing to do as humans", not simply because Jesus said so, or because the Bible has a verse about it.
I know this sounds a bit tediously pedantic, but far too many foolish ideas are promulgated when churches -as churches- become politically involved. There is of course no way to easily restrain the more extreme elements from using their church affiliation to affect political ends, but I'd hope that your 'boss the nun' doesn't pursue her goals in the name of the church, but only as a citizen who happens to be a nun.

( I think I need 12 more paragraphs to expand all that and include all the disclaimers and corollaries, but I'll spare you)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:52 AM

A problem seldom addressed is that of hammering the institution and not the individuals who commit crimes while under that institution's protective umbrella.

Cops commit crimes: breaches of their orders to protect and to serve, assaults, acceptance of payoffs, lies under oath, etc. When the individuals are found out, the institution of 'policedom' or 'law enforcement-dom' closes ranks to shield the individuals because it reflects badly on the departments, and conduct unbecoming (to greater or lesser extents) is swept under rugs to be seen or heard of no more. But it is remembered. We compound that injustice by then saying "Cops are bad" or "Law doesn't work", and despite the crass generalization, it begins to colour our perceptions of all cops, everywhere.

(Until about 1930, most if not all Protestant churches had birth control views very much like those of the Catholic church--read Rome/Vatican today. The Anglicans rethought the issue and soon after most if not all Protestant denominations did the same.)

The problem is that institutions compound the offences done by individuals by protecting them. We see this occur in the military, government, police forces, professions, and churches. Sloppy thinking got us into this mess. Further sloppy thinking won't get us out.

When the US Army had to deal with drug use in Vietnam combat units--war and recreational drugs do not go well together--it did. I think the process took about 15 years and finally it was more or less stamped out. No, not completely, but the magnitude of the problem in Vietnam which infected discipline and behaviours in the post-war army was lessened a great deal and a more effective army was the result. They gave out pink slips, options of court martial or resignation--in essence, dealt with the offenders and subsequently the problem. Had the military structure continued to 'allow' the problem to occur the military would have the same situation today that is being experienced by the Vatican and its role in denying that a problem exists. Either deal with it internally or eventually remarks such as those that surfaced after the Chicago police riots in 1968 will be accepted more readily: 'Too bad it takes 10,000 bad cops to ruin the reputation of one good cop' and it will have to be dealt with by institutions that dispense what serves as justice these days.

An ignorant population is much easier to fool, but today the internet makes what you ate for breakfast everybody's business. Organized religions have to clean up their act, and that means getting rid of bad priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, foolish encyclicals and dirt within the organization. Until that happens, it will continue to be business as usual and SSDD.

(Just a few general thoughts not aimed at anyone in particular.)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 10:33 AM

Joe Offer: Somebody said churches shouldn't be involved in politics. I disagree. Should my powerful nun friend back down on her fierce defense of the homeless, just because she's a nun and religious people shouldn't do that? Should my boss the nun stop getting arrested for protesting against warfare and capital punishment? Must I quit my association with an interfaith group that is campaigning for more humane treatment of releasees from our county jail?

Joe, these things are very different than the Church spending millions of dollars to enshrine bigotry in our laws or preaching against specific politicians from the pulpit. They are different than the Church bitching about having to follow our employment laws until they win and don't have to offer legally mandated health services to their employees. If they don't want to follow our employment laws, they should staff their hospitals and other businesses completely with volunteers. There is a big difference between moral advocacy (which anyone can do, for religious reasons or not) and making church doctrine into laws (which no one but the church is going to do). One of the lines, for me, is whether or not they are engaging in politics (as in buying politicians and paying for public initiatives) in order to take away other peoples' freedom. Another is using their official authority to coerce their members into making laws that follow the Church's religious doctrine.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:57 AM

...why isn't the Cat'lic religion keeping up with "the times"...

Because one of its strongest beliefs is that the more things change the more they stay the same and the more important it is to remain faithful to (and apply) an ancient and designed-to-be-eternally- applicable "good"-- and to stand against it's being reinterpreted to fit temporary human ideas of its meaning.

The thought is that the faith is to be a bulwark IN those changing times, and to do that it must not be changed BY them. But since its stewards are mere humans, they (we) manage to frequently screw that up.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:50 AM

He absolutely wasn't a fiend! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:49 AM

I take that point entirely. I suppose that Joe would admit that the analysis was slightly loose and that I was nit-picking to take him up on it, yet I think it's still valid because there's a flip side: I think I mentioned some time ago about going to the funeral of a fiend who hadn't been near a church in decades (except, like a lot of us, for funerals and weddings), yet the preacher declared that his goodness was a direct product of his Christianity. There are many things that atheists do worse that believers (we're a bit rubbish when it comes to engendering community spirit, for example), but I'm not having it that the human race has to have religion in order to be good. So that sort of claim, the one about my friend, is very likely to blow back in religion's face when things go pear-shaped apropos of abuse. And deservedly so in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM

Yes, it is a valid question. The answer might not be straightforward, though. For example, AA increasing its membership is more likely to be an indication of success, not failure. Now, I agree the analogy is far from perfect and, as Joe said, there's plenty of failures in the Catholic Churches (of all sects), but to decide whether 'wickedness' has or has not been reduced in 2000 years in unanswserable, if only because the definitions are constantly changing (even within the RC church)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:23 AM

That is not the same thing. AA and similar groups are there for people with severe problems of addiction and so on. For people in difficulty. The Catholic church is supposed to be just that - catholic - all-encompassing, appealing to all Christians. Its teachings are supposedly based on those of Jesus. Those teachings emphasised goodness, kindness to neighbours, humility, the eschewing of excessive wealth, help for people in need and mutual respect. According to Joe's analysis, The world outside Catholicism, two thousand years after Jesus, is just about the same as within it. Therefore "what's the point of it?" seems a valid question to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:23 AM

LH
I believe we understand that perspective. But, while some of the faithful take offense when their church is criticised, I suspect they are not the target of the commentor "at issue".

At issue, I suspect is what is the RC church, the faithful,, who control their affairs, the local organization, the priests who link with the faithful, the bishops, who link between the priests and Rome, the Rome organization, or the pope.

Some practicing RC members put forward the notion that the RC church is the billion members, who determine their own actions. This does tend to "water down" many of the issues, does it not?


However, for most non RC s the church is much fewer, the organization starting with the pope and including a much smaller number who actually hold the power to make change (or not) within the organization.In many cases.

Joe O posts:
""But in a church with a billion members, hundreds of such cases are only a small percentage. In the county where I live, dozens of cases of child abuse are reported every year - but there is no record of a single case of child abuse by a priest in this county ever.""

My impression is you consistantly attempt to use this PR approach (which I have also seen in many RC-defence discussions). It reminds me of the type of double talk used by groups like the NRA, designed to confuse the actual issue, deflect issues, and brainwash the public. For the most part, it does not work and I suspect few here fall for it. So, why continue that approach?

Clear talk: Sexual abuse of youth by those working under the authority of the RC church "was and is" child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:22 AM

I am surprised that nobody on this thread has mentioned that distinguished RC novelist David Lodge's perceptive novel "How Far Can You Go?" (1980 - but not entirely outdated even now). Wiki it; & read it - it still seems to me [not a Catholic] to say many things, to judge from this thread, still extremely pertinent. Its theme is a group of Catholics and their relationship with their faith and its development from the 1950s - 80s; with many digressions from Lodge, an intelligent & perceptive Catholic layman. Lodge appeared to be a 'benign neglect' supporter. Of Humanae Vitae, and the reactions to it, he wrote, "With hindsight, it is clear that his best course would have been to procrastinate and equivocate indefinitely so that the ban on contraception was never explicitly disowned, but quietly allowed to lapse, like earlier papal anthemas against co-education, gaslighting and railways"; the idea which became "Benign neglect" SFAICS. But, as Bonnie and others point out, it doesn't seem to have taken universally enough ~ in Cal, fine; but rural Ireland?...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 09:02 AM

Yes, most of the allegations of wickedness in the Catholic Church are true, but the proportion of wickedness is about the same as it is anywhere else.

Then what is the point of it?

Compare and contrast with, for example, alcoholics anonymous or a self help group. An effort to achieve something and actually achieving it can be far apart and yet still worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 08:47 AM

gnu, I haven't got any particular thoughts to offer you about the Vatican at the moment, but what I will say is that there are all kinds of different people who happen to be Catholics....or any other religion you might care to name...they don't necessarily fit the crude definitions other people (who don't know them) might automatically assign to them.

Here's a woman you might find very interesting:

Mary Karr

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 08:39 AM

The Catholic Church policy against contraception has been in a stage of "benign neglect" for most of the time since Pope Paul VI prohibited "artificial birth control" in his Humanae Vitae encyclical in 1968. For the most part, the same goes for the policy against homosexual sex. In most parishes I know of, there are at least a few openly homosexual couples who are accepted and welcomed as members of the community - they don't go around broadcasting the details of their sex lives, but neither do heterosexual parishioners.

Well, Bonnie beat me to it. So, by "benign neglect" are you saying that every Catholic knows it is no longer a mortal sin to use contraception? Or are they all supposed to guess? All those people in Africa, where HIV/Aids is rampant because condoms are discouraged or not available? Have all those local bishops and priests been told about this benign neglect? Are you sure that most of them are not still preaching hellfire for birth control and safe sex? As for homosexuality and "benign neglect", my devoutly Catholic uncle led an absolutely miserable life because the Church's teachings against his homosexuality devoured him from inside. He died more than 20 years after the encyclical you refer to. Someone forgot to tell him that the Church's attitude had become "benign".

Yes, most of the allegations of wickedness in the Catholic Church are true, but the proportion of wickedness is about the same as it is anywhere else.

Then what is the point of it?

Yes, there were Catholic officials who assisted the Fascists during WWII..

So why are we talking about sainting one of the popes who connived in these actions? Why is there the continuing secrecy and cover-up of the Church's dirty financial dealings with Mussolini and the subsequent accumulation (effected equally shadily) of guilt wealth?

At least in the United States, there are now very strict procedures that attempt to eliminate the molestation of children in the Catholic Church.

So, after two thousand years of teaching that we should live by the principles laid down by Jesus, the organisation still needs this. Any idea what went wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:43 AM

We are not all miserable sinners. Some of us are happy sinners!
It's the guilt. The church fosters a feeling of guilt, and atonement.
Even if you ignore the edict against contraception, you still feel guilty about doing it. So they have you in the guilt trap, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:35 AM

" I have never heard a priest say anything against homosexuality from the pulpit." and why is that the case Joe?

When the pope has pronounced against the practice, in addition to the horrific health figures?

Could it be the huge over-representation of homosexuals in the priesthood?

I have also heard the Pope speak on the immorality of abortion as a last ditch means of birth control. Should the priesthood not be advising on the need to change our current sexual behaviour, start showing some responsibility for the "sacred" act of procreation?

If you wish to promote family values and responsible sexual behaviour, you need priests who actually know or CARE about the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 06:59 AM

How many families do that? LOTS. Your parish is in California. Not Ireland. Or doesn't anything that's not in your own back yard count? Just because you haven't seen it (or don't want to look beyond your own horizons) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

No I am not overdramatising. The ban on birth control IS the problem (or one of them), and those are its fruits. But you're obviously more worried about defending the church and rationalising its victims out of existence than about the wrongness of the issues.

For the record, I was picking up on the use of the evasive term "benign neglect", about which there is nothing benign. Re-read what I actually *wrote*. The birth control ban is still in place and therefore it has force and consequences. FACT.

That policy is hypocritical and damaging to many - their suffering is real, whether you choose to believe it or not. Your response is to just dismiss them as somehow not existing or find a rationale to omit them from consideration.

You're in denial. Selectively addressing only the aspects you want to, and ignoring the inconvenient rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 06:32 AM

The death of one woman through neglect...is a tragedy.

The termination of thousands of unborn children in the cause of convenience is a moral crime.

There are many facets to most issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 06:20 AM

Bonnie says: They go on having marriage-straining babies they neither want nor can afford, sometimes at the risk of health.

How many families do that, Bonnie? In our parish of 800 families, the number is exactly two. Both are ultra-conservative, legalistic Catholics. The other large families in our parish have adopted their children. It's the same in other parishes I've belonged to - one or two very conservative families have scads of miserable children, and the rest have two or three kids. So, don't you think you're overdramatizing the effects of the ban on birth control? Most priests I know don't go telling people not to practice birth control, and I have never heard a priest say anything against birth control from the pulpit. For that matter, I have never heard a priest say anything against homosexuality from the pulpit.

---

Jim says: the earliest recorded case of child abuse by a cleric took place 1,700 years ago.

So, Jim, when did the earliest recorded case of non-clergy child abuse take place, and when did the first coverup take place? I don't deny that far too many cases of sexual abuse by clergy took place. But in a church with a billion members, hundreds of such cases are only a small percentage. In the county where I live, dozens of cases of child abuse are reported every year - but there is no record of a single case of child abuse by a priest in this county ever. There have been ten cases in the next county over in the last century, but none in this county. My point is that while the crime is horrific, you cannot condemn the many for the crimes of the few.

And in Milwaukee, where there was a priest next door molesting dozens of children, I was living with 25 priests who were not. And yes, there was one bastard, but he was just a mean bastard, not a molester.



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:57 AM

Sorry Joe - a little ingenuous here – to say the least.
My point to you earlier was that this ongoing affair cannot possibly be explained away as "one priest who did these crimes" and it is a horrific distortion of the situation to claim it is.
My letter on the 'Who Will Be The Next Pope' thread.
Jim Carroll

07 Mar 13 - 02:54 AM
Have just got back from Dublin after seeing 'Mea Maxima Culpa' - Silence in the House of God, a documentary on the emerging of the earliest revelations of the clerical abuse scandal that (hopefully) will remove any temporal influence the church may have on the lives of any human being anywhere on this planet.
The film begins with the systematic abuse of deaf children by Milwaukee priest, Father Lawrence Murphy. It goes on to describe the lengths three of the abused children went to to bring these crimes to the attention of the public, and the lengths the church went to to cover up the abuses and to keep Father Murphy in office so he could continue to work with deaf children and continue to abuse them.
The last section of the film shows how the Vatican reacted to the revelations of world-wide clerical abuse, from refusing to co-operate with the investigation of these crimes, to denying access to relevant documents and information, even to declaring The Vatican a separate State and therefore immune to prosecution for or implication in any of these crimes.
The retiring pope, who denied any knowledge of these crimes until the abuses became public knowledge, in fact lied. As an archbishop he was put in charge of dealing with all reported child abuses by clerics - every single reported case of clerical child abuse that became known to the church, or even suspected, passed through his hands.
Up to the present day The Vatican holds these and many other such documents in its archives and refuses access to them in order to protect the abusers and the reputation, wealth and (remaining) influence of church.
One interesting fact (to me at least) revealed by the film was that the earliest recorded case of child abuse by a cleric took place 1,700 years ago - it's been going on a long, long, long time.
I don't know who the next pope will be but I hope it is somebody honest, decent and brave enough to deal with these massive number of serial crimes, acknowledge the church establishment's role in them and bring some sort of closure to the surviving victims - but somehow, I doubt it.
I would make MEA MAXIMA CULPA - Silence in the House of God obligatory viewing to anybody who doubts the facts of these crimes; in fact, it wouldn't be any harm for anybody working with and having influence over children to treat themselves to a couple of hours worth of unremitting horror.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:36 AM

> The Catholic Church policy against contraception has been in a stage of "benign neglect" for most of the time since Pope Paul VI

"Benign neglect" is not good enough. That's merely another phrase for COP-OUT. Don't-look-at-it-and-hope-it-will-quietly-take-care-of-itself. This is not the same thing as having the courage/honesty to make a clear ruling and take responsibility for it. They could change it in the morning if they really wanted to.

There are still many people in thrall to the Church - especially here (Ireland) - who are bound by such outdated, intrusive edicts. They go on having marriage-straining babies they neither want nor can afford, sometimes at the risk of health. And don't count on being able to get a termination even if it's life-threatening. Remember what just happened in Galway.*

"Benign neglect" is ignoring the problem, NOT ADDRESSING IT. It only sweeps it under the carpet, out of sight. Like misbehaving priests.


*Savita Halappanavar died after developing septicaemia from a miscarriage which lasted almost three days. 

The baby's heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday. "I got a call on Wednesday night that Savita's heart rate had really gone up and that they had moved her to ICU," Mr Halappanavar said. "Things just kept on getting worse and on Friday they told me that she was critically ill." Some of Savita's organs stopped functioning and she died on Sunday 28 October. An autopsy carried out two days after her death found she had died from septicaemia, according to the Irish Times. Praveen Halappanavar said staff at University Hospital Galway told them Ireland was "a Catholic country".

"University Hospital Galway is to carry out an internal investigation… [They stated that] 'Galway Roscommon University Hospitals Group wishes to emphasise that the facts of this tragic case have yet to be established; that is the purpose of the review.'" From BBC: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741


Oh. They're going to investigate *themselves*. That'll be enlightening.

Erm… the "facts of the case" are that a woman with a three-days' dead fetus inside her was refused a termination and died of internal poisoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:47 AM

Just to put some perspective to what Jim Carroll says, it's my understanding that the movie Mea Maxima Culpa is about the director of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee, where the director molested a number of students over a period of several years in the 1970s. This was a terrible thing, and it affects me even more powerfully because I was in a high school seminary right next door at the time that this was happening.

But it was one priest who did these crimes, and it was forty years ago. And in the seminary I was attending next door, there were twenty-five priests who were remarkably wonderful people, and a couple of real bastards.

Fr. William H. Whalen, if you should ever Google your name, I want you to see this. You were a real bastard. Not a sexual pervert, just a bastard. I knew you for seven of my eight years at St. Francis Seminary, and I hated you all that time.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:29 AM

"So blind, so selfish, so up their own arse!" And the institution as a whole doesn't seem to be learning its lesson. As I understand it the four complainants against Cardinal O'Brien (ie three practising priests and an ex-priest) only went public because of the way the church was dealing with, or not-dealing with the allegations. They weren't just protecting their own - they were protecting the more powerful among their own. What chance would a susceptible member of the community have of being believed or at least taken seriously if respected figures in the church aren't?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:25 AM

See Mea Maxima Culpa if it comes on a cinema - it shows the depths the church and its hierarchy sank to to protect the perpetrators of atrocities against - that `protection goes on
Perhaps Hercules might consider returning from the dead to clean out another Augean Stable.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 03:45 AM

The Catholic Church policy against contraception has been in a stage of "benign neglect" for most of the time since Pope Paul VI prohibited "artificial birth control" in his Humanae Vitae encyclical in 1968. For the most part, the same goes for the policy against homosexual sex. In most parishes I know of, there are at least a few openly homosexual couples who are accepted and welcomed as members of the community - they don't go around broadcasting the details of their sex lives, but neither do heterosexual parishioners. For the most part, people and priests in Catholic parishes go about their daily routines of trying to be good people and serving the poor and trying to worship God in one way or another - and all of this other stuff just doesn't come into play very often.

Yes, most of the allegations of wickedness in the Catholic Church are true, but the proportion of wickedness is about the same as it is anywhere else. Yes, there were Catholic officials who assisted the Fascists during WWII, and there were Catholic officials who heroically rescued Jews and worked in the Resistance. Yes, there were were far too many priests who molested children and far too many bishops who covered up their misdeeds or at least bungled the handling of these crimes. And yes, most Catholics (and the vast majority of priests and bishops) know about these crimes and are outraged by them. At least in the United States, there are now very strict procedures that attempt to eliminate the molestation of children in the Catholic Church. As a volunteer who works with youth in the Catholic Church, I had to take a 90-minute class on abuse of children just this week, and I was fingerprinted to see if I had any arrest record. I thought it was a very good course, by the way - and it's not the first one I've had to take.

Yes, I would like to see divorced-and-remarried lesbian bishops who are allowed to practice birth control, but life goes on pretty well without that accomplishment. For the most part, those who practice birth control and homosexuality, will be welcome in the Catholic Church as long as they don't make an issue of these issues. And while women can't be ordained priests, they can have a lot of power in the Catholic Church. I spent the day today with a nun who is probably the most powerful woman in Sacramento - she runs an amazing center for homeless people, and she regularly does battle with all the movers and shakers in town.

Somebody said churches shouldn't be involved in politics. I disagree. Should my powerful nun friend back down on her fierce defense of the homeless, just because she's a nun and religious people shouldn't do that? Should my boss the nun stop getting arrested for protesting against warfare and capital punishment? Must I quit my association with an interfaith group that is campaigning for more humane treatment of releasees from our county jail?

In this thread or another, somebody was saying something about the duplicity of the Catholic Church in calling itself "pro-life" and allowing members to become soldiers and allowing nations to engage in "just war." Well, the Catholic Church is slowly and quietly moving toward a fairly complete pacifist stance, while allowing members to make their own decisions about their own lives.

I suppose it would be very nice to have a Catholic Church with all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed, but it muddles along pretty well without those things. I'm sure it's not perfect enough to satisfy the absolutists, but maybe that's a good thing.

I went to the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress two weeks ago, the largest annual gathering of Catholics anywhere (some 30,000 Catholics meeting across the street from Disneyland). We had the best speakers and the best musicians the Catholic Church has to offer, and it was a lovely weekend. There were fundamentalist Catholic and Protestant protesters outside the area, shouting about how horrible it was that we weren't worshipping according to their specifications. If those hate-filled people were against us, then we must have been doing something right. Heck, they even said we had a "homosexual agenda."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: ollaimh
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 10:47 PM

liberals don't want to eliminate all religion, but some would like to get rid of the the religions that have delusions of .. er ... well god.   adults really shouldn't have imaginay friends but if they do they should read about the idea of reification. or perhaps even begin to undrstand "emptuness"

it's really silly to think some "gor" tells you want to do, sillier to think that god understands anything better than your do, and silliest to imagine that god would make up rules for everyone.

especially when those rules include genocide, hate, killing and raping children. no "god" there.

this may not be compatable with catholic doctrines

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:25 PM

Well they have to clean the shit out of their eyes to see anything approaching reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:16 PM

so up their own arse!

Interesting allusion there on the contraceptive front, John...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 01:06 PM

In a world which is disastrously, maybe even terminally, over populated.
All the Catholic church is doing by forbidding contraception, is helping this world commit suicide.
So blind, so selfish, so up their own arse!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:55 AM

I suspect many religions "rigidly" adhere to past practices, and they receive less public comment than the RC church.

A good question may be "why is there more concern expressed for internal RC matters, than with other religions"? (Take Islam, for example, where many adhere "rigidly" to past practices).

My personal answer is because the RC church is often "in your face", and in the news,still influencing many aspects of in western society.
Because of this,attention is drawn to what many see as conflicts between the RC church leadership with current society and with their interpretation of many of Christs messages - (IMO, those who are not RCs and non-believers in religion also see many Christian messages as important to a just and caring society).

At the basis may be the potential impacts fall closer to home in the western world than with other religions. Other factors may relate to the historic evolution of Christianity and related disputes, power struggles, questionable non-religious activities in the past (some that would seem counter to the Christian message), and different interpretations of "the Christian path" by various Christian churches. Since the RC church has a founding position in Christianity, this likely puts it more closely "under the microscope". Having a central, and often very visible leader compounds this focus and public interest beyond "the faithful of the RC". (For example, many people have an interest in the Dalai Lama because of his status as a celebrity, rather than his religions message).

In more recent times, a broader tolerance and understanding of gender and sexuality issues has emerged in western countries. While these issues have stimulated internal strife and discussion inside many Christian churches, most have kept the discussion internal and generally operate "in sync' with changes in their local society/government. While many of "the RC faithful" are generally in sync with these society changes, the top level of the RC church has not always (if ever) been in this position.

On a final note, IMO, the dismal way the center of the RC church dealt with the sex abuse scandal, did more harm to the RC church than all the controversial actions and issues related to it's leadership throughout all of it's history.

With any failure comes an opportunity for "meaningful" change. Whether the opportunity is grasped by the RC church, is in the hands of those who likely are less connected to the outside than its followers (or even anyone on Mudcat). What prognosis does that give for significant and "meaningful" change, regardless of who is selected by the would be "pope-folks" under the veil of the white smoke?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Futwick
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:47 AM

"When religions become involved with money or politics, they ain't religions anymore."

That's exactly what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:29 AM

GUEST.....I dont have to check under my bed for "reds".

I am a proper red, not one of the pinkos you see on these pages.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 10:02 AM

Kinda like Pappy Bush & the Nazis, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:44 AM

Link to an article about the Fascist money. Note the secrecy and the positively murky ways the money was invested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-mussolini

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:35 AM

I agree with much of what has been said. Over the decades we have seen large-scale cover-ups of wrongdoings that have served only to encourage the perpetuation of those wrongdoings. There are nowhere near enough priests and nuns rotting in jail for my liking. The Church allowed itself to be bought off by the Fascists in Italy and the Vatican oversaw the removal of Jews to death camps and facilitated the escape to South America of Nazi war criminals. There's talk of sainting the pope who did that stuff as well as Mother Teresa, one of the wickedest people who ever lived. Today, the Vatican has a £500 million property portfolio funded entirely by well-invested money paid to the Church (to persuade it to keep silent about fascism) by Mussolini. You can buy high fashion in Regent Street from a shop bankrolled by Fascist money. The Church is responsible for high abortion rates and keeping millions in poverty, especially women, by promoting ignorance about sex and forbidding birth control. I'm an avowed atheist but I'm all for people following whatever religion appeals to them. I do think they ought to think a little more about the kind of organisation they're associating with.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:35 AM

Yes Ian, that one struck me as well.

Today kick 'em out of the priesthood, whether or no they are obeying the celibacy rules.

Tomorrow out of politics, ignoring that they can no longer be blackmailed for secrets

Next? Who knows, but if he ever had his way there wouldn't be one left able to support himself, unless he stayed in the closet.

Akenaton has all the instincts of a committed Nazi.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 09:14 AM

Akenaton -remove all homosexuals.

Is there no thread available where you don't see an opportunity to spread your vile personality disorder?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John P
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:57 AM

Yes, the Catholic Church needs to move farther into modern society to stay relevant, but the biggest thing they could do to prove that they believe what they say would be to turn over all records of child rape to the secular authorities, along with all the rapist priests and all the bishops and cardinals who were part of the international child rape conspiracy. They should also voluntarily offer massive reparations to the victims. When victims have to sue in court for reparations, it's hard to believe that the church sees anything wrong with rape. I've always thought the church was cluelessly medieval. Since the news of all the rapes came out I've upgraded that to actively evil. If the new pope doesn't address this issue in a real way, the church is going to lose more and more people. At some point, why should anyone believe anything they say?

I guess I should add that the church's massive effort and expenditure of millions of dollars to influence secular laws in negative ways (anti-civil rights, anti-woman, anti-birth control, etc.) also puts them in the actively evil camp. They are engaged in a well-funded and well-organized conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution of the United States by tearing down the separation of church and state. A bishop that advocates excommunicating politicians because he disagrees with their politics should get fired by the Vatican.

There is no hope for the church unless it finds a way to be moral again.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:42 AM

Very interesting and insightful commentaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:33 AM

""liberalism" is on a mission to destroy religion,"

Do you check under your bed for lurking reds every night?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MarkS
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 08:14 AM

It is taking a while, but the church is coming to terms with the fact that while they may be a spriritual authority, they no longer are a secular authority.
And in that role they are slowly slowly slowly learning to inspire rather than command.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:36 AM

...HAVE done enormous harm.... , THE Curia.
Sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:30 AM

I am interested in Joe's response. There can be no doubt that he is better qualified than most to comment on the Catholic church and its machinations. However, it does raise the question of when does an organization become so loose as to cease to have a distinguishable character?
The Catholic church has got to evolve if it is to retain meaning and relevance but, at the same time, it has to be absolutely clear about its core values. The attempted cover-ups of paedophilia and other wrondoings in an attempt to protect the church has done an enormous disservice to the church and may have done irreparable harm. Could this be because there is a major problem with Curia - has the church hierarchy become so inward-looking and obsessed with image that gospel values have been lost?
The history of the Vatican has much that is murky, Roberto Calvi and Marcinkus spring immediately to mind. It seems to me that the organization must do away with a large part of the Vatican bureaucracy, bring in a great deal more transparency and recognise that everyone is fallible (even if they wear a red hat) and stop closing ranks to protect those responsible for wrongdoing.
Belonging to any club or organization involves accepting the rules and ethos of that organization, become too liberal or too conservative and you not only harm the organization but you call into question the values of the organization. When the organization is a church this effect is magnified as churches are targets for active dislike by many who seek to deride and condemn. Honest acceptance of the tenets of Catholicism and an end to lip service by too many senior clerics are probably two of the most important reforms needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:20 AM

> I think the Catholic Church has to get out of the business of compelling people to do stuff or not to do stuff. We've reached a point where a significant percentage of the laity are educated and sophisticated enough to make their own decisions.

> the Catholic church must remove the celibacy rule


Oh man, write it in caps, underline it, put it in red boldface.

Even without the scandals, they are losing credibility and followers worldwide in direct proportion to the extent that they fail at the above things. Sooner or later they'll have to implement such changes, if only as a self-preservation measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 07:03 AM

"If the next Pope is conservative but is willing to respect and tolerate liberals, that would be a big step forward."(Joe)

John is perfectly correct....is a little blunt.
"liberalism" is on a mission to destroy religion, that means the good stuff as well as the bad.......The thought of a completely secular world is too horrible to contemplate.

As I have been saying for years, the Catholic church must remove the celibacy rule....appoint married priests, preferrably with children.
and remove all the homosexuals from the priesthood.
How can they promote family values and marriage if 30% of priests are homosexual? It is sheer hypocrisy.
If they do not tackle these issues they can look forward to oblivion...and although I am an atheist, I am sure humanity will be the worse for the loss.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 06:25 AM

The more modern any church is, the more likely people are to understand it.
Ergo; if you remove the mystique, and the superstition. What do you have left to control the members?
The church needs superstition and mumbo jumbe, in order to scare folks into obeying, and thus believing.
I think that, the printing of the bible in English, and the removal of the Latin mass, caused all the drift away from religion.
You see, once people understand things, they lose interest.

It's along the same line as the old warning mothers give their daughters. "If you let him do that, he won't respect you in the morning"