BS: At last a Pope talks some sense

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 10:34 PM

Ed, it doesn't look like you've been *discussing* anything, only lecturing and brow-beating.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

It does seem that some here won't be happy until the Catholic Church is disbanded and its assets confiscated. This has happened in the past in England, France, and other places. Is this what's needed?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:16 PM

akenaton
I do not dispute what you say.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 05:04 PM

Ed...You fail to note that most of these offenses were committed by men on pubescent boys.....The Catholic church did not encourage or instigate these crimes, each one was purely personal to the men who carried them out.

Where the Church failed was in being like any large organisation and practicing a form of damage limitation.

The Church can be criticised and censured for acting like a corporation and cowardice in the face of the evidence, but not for being the CAUSE of the crimes.

Any enquiry within the Church, should look very closely at the celibacy rule and rates of homosexuality in the priesthood.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 04:27 PM

Joe

Your last word noted
Now don't be like a RC "foghorn leghorn"....our discussion is closed.
Please pull the plug...

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:24 PM

And another word...
While I'm happy to see Catholics questioning authority, an interesting phenomenon has happened that distresses me: the cult of John Paul II.

Catholics may question the current Pope, who tends to talk in rational terms even when I don't agree with him. But John Paul II wasn't rational at all. He was very popular, so he relied on his popularity to carry him through things. And people still don't understand how inadequate he was, and how much damage he did during his long reign as Pope. They want him to be a saint, and they can't believe he could have done wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:50 PM

Well, Ed, there is one good thing that has come out of this sex scandal:
Catholics are now quicker to question authority. They've come to understand that bishops sometimes lie, and that priests sometimes commit horrible crimes. The illusion* of infallibility in the Catholic Church has died.
But Catholics have also come to realize that most of their very human bishops and priests, are pretty good people - but not perfect.
Those are good things.

Now, if only you could come to an understanding....

-Joe-


*the doctrine of infallibility is very limited, and applies only to very few matters

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:25 PM

Oh, Joe O:...you won't give up, trying to score some last minute RC points, will you...even with my gentle hints, that's it's over :)

Remember that the RC church sex scandal had a big and long term impact on the behaviour of thoseabused . ya know...those who you say are not your enemy (your view, not mine)....what you sow is what you reap...kind'a stuff.

And now, you can post the last word...if it makes you feel good ...go for it

Musical content:"Whatever gets you through the night, alright, alright"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM

Ed, get this straight:

• There is no justification for the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. None.
  
• There are no excuses for the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. None.
  
• The victims were Catholic children, and Catholics are outraged that this has happened. What is happening now, is that people are trying to pick up the pieces, to come to a rational understanding why this happened, and to come up with solutions that will prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
  
• But for now, there are very few answers. Nobody understands child molestation, and nobody knows how to prevent it or to heal the damage it does.

Then you say this, Ed:

you are using a false analogy to put forward a straw and circular argument to jump to an unjustified conclusion....that a great number of people abuse children, therefore RC priests abusing children is not all that bad....The Vatican and RC spin doctors already tried that one...even putting forward the argument that many abused (excluding the ones who were abused by now deceased priests, of course) abused underaged teen aged boys....so it was not really that bad.

Where do you find this stuff, Ed? It doesn't make any sense at all. Who would dare to say that abusing children is "not all that bad." Now, there have been studies that have shown that sexual conduct with those past puberty is different from having sex with children who have not reached puberty. And yes, I do think that sexually molesting prepubescent children is a worse crime than molesting older children - but both are serious, criminal acts. Nobody is attempting to deny the criminality of any of these actions.

But Ed, you're talking with your anger, not with your head. I'm angry about this, too; but I know we have to calmly study the problem and come up with a rational, workable solution.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 01:51 PM

Joe, While, I don't have the time...but, I suspect I could go through your previous (RC related) posts here and on other threads and prove that you frequently confuse facts for: your opinions, generalizations "either-or" assumptions and " circular arguments". You often pously attempt to put your "RC expertise" forward to promote a position, I suspect hoping all will accept your posted word as fact. This may be "alright for some, but not alright for me"

You rarely give credible sourses or links to give back-up to your assertions, and frequently confuse what happens to you locally and in the USA as representative with what happens globally with the RC church experiences and affairs.   In other words, you are not actually proving anything through the factual route that you now seem to hold so dear.   We all have opinions, put them forward in debates...but few (including me) expect these to be considered more than opinions....unless backed up.

I have not, nor do I wish to challenge anything about the amount given to anyone who was offered, requests or was legallyally provided with funds to compensate (in some way) for RC sexual abuse. As I said before, and I repeat compassion is fine..."but, money changes everything"and the abused are not the enemy.

My suggestion as to possible funding sources was that only, a suggestion...it is an internal matter for the RC church and its faithful (not me) to choose to deal with, or not...not mine.

A few posts back, I attempted to end this discussion with you, as it seemed pointless and going nowhere and is not resolving any related issue with you or me. Plus, it is probably boring for others.

I suggest we return to the main topic..which you refer to at the end of your last post, if needed.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 12:56 PM

Royston, I recognize that you and Joe O use some of the arguments that have been put forward before by RC appologists to justify the sex scandals But, with all respects to you and Joe O. I am not one of the RC faithful (though I respect the internal faith decisions of others) , and, I do not fall for them because many are not logical.

I said
Ed: "Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue
You said
But it is the issue! .....

I disagree with your spin on that one. If someone kills kids in the UK for a black magic sacrifice , it does not address, or justify, this (the issue) by trying to diluteits seriousness by saying people frequently kill kids in Uganda for the same reason, thus it is not an issue. this is not logical... you are using a false analogy to put forward a straw and circular argument to jump to an unjustified conclusion....that a great number of people abuse children, therefore RC priests abusing children is not all that bad....The Vatican and RC spin doctors already tried that one...even putting forward the argument that many abused (excluding the ones who were abused by now deceased priests, of course) abused underaged teen aged boys....so it was not really that bad.

I stated "parishoners blame that they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims"

You say "
And so do local or national taxpayers when governmental organisations get themseves in the same state. Tell me where there is a rational difference please"

OK, Lets use a recent example....a national government bails out of a car company in a community. The local community is not forced to bear the full costs...as it would be a signifant drain on their resources (i.e, Joe's multi thread complaint) the national government spreads the costs over taxpayers in the entire nation.

You imply that the Pope is not a leader with the power to affect the secular lives of Catholics or non-Catholics...well I don't care a monkey about that either...it does not relate to the issue of paying for sex abuse costs. The Pope (s) is"on the books" the leader of the RC organization, (as Joe O grudgling had to admit in a post) regardless of how you try to paint it and protect the guy did have a responsibility to come forward and ensure it was dealt with....not just to say I am sorry decades after.

A problem I have with your posts....as with Joes...is I am sure you are logical , thoughtful and compassionful people...but when it comes to debating anything RC. In your last post you use the terms "prejudice (anti-catholic)
"reactionary bigots" , "Atheists / Agnostics", , "Atheist bigots or reactionaries", " Catholics for a day" very negative terms at those who question the RC church in any way. You also forget to mention that Catholics are not the only Christians in the world....a fraudian slip maybe?   In earlier posts I see that anyone who questions or debates aspects of the the RC church, and especially the "sex scandal" these and similar terms are used....including the word biased. I will not copmment further on this...just wish to bring it to your attention....for you to mull over and consider that RC bias may also be a defining part of the RC church that may be central to the faith...but a barrier to logical discussion....just a thought and observation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 06:03 AM

Ed: "Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue

But it is the issue! If you choose to raise this issue of child abuse, then it is important to recognise the awful truth that it mostly happens elsewhere. That the Church, as a body that was trusted to care for children, had people inside it abused that trust, makes it no different to any other organisation that was used by paedophiles to perpetrate abuse.

Ed: "parishoners blame that they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims"

And so do local or national taxpayers when governmental organisations get themseves in the same state. Tell me where there is a rational difference please, Ed.

If The Pope was a leader with the power to affect the secular lives of Catholics or non-Catholics (whether believers in something else or in nothing at all), I would probably be as angry as you are, Ed. But he is not that leader and so I couldn't give a monkey's. He is free to say whatever he wants as far as I am concerned. I have said that I think he is wrong and that he can hardly "do good" by these pronouncements. But I'm not taking it out on innocent people, whereas you seem to be doing just that.

The thing is Ed, now I am speaking as someone on the notional receiving end of whatever prejudice Benedict stirs up by his most recent pronouncements, he is rather like the sound of one hand clapping on this point.

Catholics who are not reactionary bigots, and/or those that aspire to and achieve a Christian sense of compassion and forgiveness, will hear him, disregard him and carry on with life, doing good.

Catholics with fear and prejudice issues and a lack of compassion and forgiveness will hear him, approve of him and carry on with their lives and will continue to do harm.

Atheists / Agnostics should probably just ignore him. Atheists with socially progressive, humanist views will continue to be good to their fellow man, Atheist bigots or reactionaries - surprisigingly - will probably become "Catholics for a day" and heartily approve of Benedict's mumblings and take some bizarre support from him.

That, Ed, is a set of observations relevant to the topic. It is about whether the Pope is relevant to the issues about which he spoke, it is about whether he can change the way Catholics go about the world, let alone anyone else. I say probably not - because Catholics (like all groupings of people) reflect a range of the best and the worst that people can be, and where individuals sit in that spectrum has precious little to do with any man of Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 04:02 AM

So, Richard, who did the Pope talk to? A gathering of UK bishops in Rome, right?

And furthermore, doesn't the EU have laws that allow citizens at least some amount of free speech? He may be Pope, but he's a citizen of Germany, which is a member of the EU.

And can it be that organizations do not have the right to discuss legislation that affects them? It seems to me that the proposed legislation intends to do away with some protections that organizations (particularly religious organizations) have had in the past. Can it really be that these organizations dare not discuss this legislation?

I gotta say, you Europeans certainly are big on suppressing the right of people to speak their mind.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 03:49 AM

"This was discussion within an organization, not lobbying government officials."

How disingenuous can you get?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Feb 10 - 02:44 AM

Well, Ed, you lost track of the facts long ago.

I suppose you can't do it - but see if you can divorce yourself from all this for a few minutes. If a doctor were to molest a child, how much in damages should be paid by the clinic where he is employed? If the clinic were to offer a settlement of $40,000 in 1980 dollars, would that be reasonable? In 1980, $40,000 was about half the value of the average house in California, and there were places in the US at the time where you could get a pretty nice house for $40,000.

In most cases in the U.S., victims were offered fairly generous settlements that did not require them to go to court - they had to go to court only if they wanted a larger settlement, or if the offender was criminally prosecuted (that's the U.S. Constitution, not the Catholic Church, that requires that a criminal defendant be able to face his accuser in most cases). There were a few lawsuits that established the facts of the cases and set the amounts of settlements, but most of the complaints were settled out of court or in class action suits.

And in most cases in my diocese and many others, people who were compensated quite generously twenty years or more ago, came back for more money during the past decade. What happened is that there were a few dioceses like Boston that were absolutely callous in their treatment of victims. I think there almost were reasonable grounds for criminal prosecution of Cardinal Law of Boston. He lost his exalted position in shame, but he's lucky he's not in prison. Juries in Boston and some other places with similar problems were outraged, and awarded high damages to the victims - and rightly so. But those high damage awards set the bar high all over the U.S., even in places where church officials had conducted themselves responsibly - and hundreds of closed and settled cases were reopened with demands for higher damage awards.

Although you finally accept that Pope Benedict DID apologize personally and directly to a number of victims, you say he's too late, that he should have done it much sooner. Well, he did it in the U.S. within just a few months after he became Pope. I will agree that it was terribly wrong that no apology or even acknowledgement was made by John Paul II, who was pope 1978-2005. I despised John Paul II, and celebrated on the day he died.

And you talk about church leaders who "publically lobby to limit the long fought rights of equality..." - you neglect to say that the topic of this discussion was a statement that the Pope made in Rome to bishops to the UK, discussing a law that will affect the way those bishops act as employers. This was discussion within an organization, not lobbying government officials. And the concern wasn't about employees who cut grass - it was about people in teaching and pastoral positions. And are you upset that current and previous Popes spoke out against the U.S. wars in Iraq and Vietnam, and against unjust treatment of immigrants in the U.S., against the sex trade in Asia, against nuclear weapons, and against race discrimination in the U.S. Is it wrong for the Catholic Church to interfere with national governments by sending food to citizens who are starving?

And these artworks that you think should be sold - most are religious artifacts, donated for religious purposes. I don't know what the laws are in other places, but in the US, donations have to be used for the purpose they were donated for. These pieces of art were given for the enjoyment by the public - rich and poor, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Don't you think poor people should be allowed to see the greatest works of art known to humankind?

Facts, Ed, facts. If you want to carry on a rational discussion, you have to honor the facts.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 10:02 PM

Yes Joe...I do feel repulsed (that you brand anger) when anyone abuses innocent children or when those in authority do not intervene when they know it is happening ....and abuse them again by hiding the guilty. It is even more repulsiv, as noted in the thread title, when their leaders then publically lobby to limit the long fought rights of equality for those looked down on by societies...all because they fear that one of their churches may can't discriminate against a homosexual may want a job cutting their grass. Yes, it pisses me off.

"And then you come up with this cockamamie horseshit statement that you think I see child molestation victims as "the enemy."

Reread your posts Joe, you are fairly proficient at spreading the stuff. On the one hand you go on about your christia-compassion side and on the other whining and complaing about big costs from cases fairly won by those abused...sure seems like an enemy (as I defined it in my earlier post) to me. If you wish to recoup the costs for your folks, go after the Vatican....they can sell some of the properties and artworks....what the fuck does a Christian church need with millions or more dollars of artwork anyway....when many world peoples, many RCs have hunger and live in poverty.

Some were validly won in courts, some were settled, because the RC church realized they did not have good legal cases, some amounts were given to punish the RC church for a lack of acction.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:36 PM

Royston,

The relationship is credibility of popes, current and past (whom the RC church docrine (regardless of how many street level RCs believe it, or anything else the pope says publically) claims represents christ on Earth. ...and whether they should focus on cleaning up   their own house (versus fleesing their parishes) before preaching to others worldwide on faithful ways to govern in this world....as the thread topic indicates.

I submit the actions of these(co called) holy people, these popes were similar in nature to condoning sexual abuse, by ignoring priest sexual abuse of children, in positions of authority, under the employ of the RC church...by allowing a cover-ups and the movement of offending priests to other unsuspecting locations...where they offended again, by sitting by while bishops blamed the victims and refused to compassionately reach out and help heal victims. Rather than effecting change...they did nothing, forced victims to go publically before the courts...where they were mostly successful in law suits....and then dump the bill on the local parishes...to save the Vatican booty.

Sure there is crime and sexual abuse elsewhere....but that is not the issue, nor makes these actions in a church that claims to be christian, any better. To make it worse, parishoners blamethat they must bear the costs of the settlements on the victims...rather than going after the Vatican and its billions accumulated over the decades.

And yes, other organizations have had scandals....but again , that is not the issue, nor makes it less revolting. In most of the other organizations, leadership from the top intervened, to make amends and to put measures in place to limit the occurance in the future.. Not the Popes....they preach to civil governments. Only recently, after decades of victims coming forward has a pope done the minimum...said he was sorry...Big fucking deal Mr. Pope.
As the song goes, "it's a little too late to do the right thing now"

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:17 PM

Willie, you talk about barefoot people in Latin America with bad water, building fancy churches. Well.....there's a story behind that. My home town, Racine, Wisconsin, has eight Catholic churches, all within walking distance of each other. Each church originally served a different ethnic group. My understanding is that these people built these churches themselves, as a symbol of their presence and identity and pride as a community - ordinarily, they weren't instructed to do the building. It was done of their own initiative.
Now that the ethnic groups have grown wealthy and moved to the suburbs, their inner-city churches are empty, and the Catholic Church wants to close or consolidate parishes. You'll hear stories of church-closing protests all over the United States. People think of their churches as part of their identity as a community, not as property of the Pope in Rome.
Same thing applies in third world countries. Ordinarily, the first thing Catholic missionaries do when they arrive in an area, is work to improve the water supply. The general policy is NOT to attempt to convert anyone, but simply to serve the people. If the people like the efforts of the missionaries, they often will inquire about the Catholic faith, and then the missionaries will offer instructions. the missionaries may build a simple chapel or hold Mass outside, but the building of an elaborate church is usually done on the initiative of the community, not the priests - the people see the church building as a symbol of who they are, and they generally take great pride in their church. A pretty church may be the only beautiful thing many people can possess - and beauty is sometimes as important to people as water systems. So, don't be too quick to judge.

Then there's the perennial question of the wealth of the Vatican. My understanding is that Pope Pius V, who reigned 1566-74 (just after the Reformation), was not a very good pope. HOWEVER, he has his name on as many big buildings in Rome, as Richard J. Daley has on public buildings in the city of Chicago, where he was mayor from 1955 to his death in 1976. The buildings cost a lot of money, much of which was raised by the selling of indulgences - but please remember that the buildings provided employment for a lot of people without use of the most valuable natural resources; and the have brought millions of tourists to Rome ever since. Still, I would have sided with Luther and opposed the indulgence-selling campaign and expenditure of such huge amounts of money for those buildings, and I think it's obscene that the name of Pius V is plastered all over the city of Rome. No worse than Daley's name all over Chicago, though, I suppose. And despite my objections to the expenditures, I have to say I like the buildings of Rome and Chicago, and I can walk the streets and enjoy them without paying a penny (once I get there).

A great portion of Vatican wealth is in priceless art and architecture. I suppose they could all be privatized, so that they could be seen only by those who paid admission - but the people who originally donated or paid for these works of art, intended for them to be enjoyed by everyone. And if you go to Rome, you can't help but enjoy this stuff. Do you really want it all in the hands of private collectors?

The major portion of Vatican wealth is an endowment, a huge stock portfolio that supports most of the operations of the Vatican City State, so that it is for the most part not financially dependent for support on parishioners worldwide. This endowment came from reparations Mussolini paid for the Papal States, the entire central part of Italy, which were taken over by the Italian nation when Italy became a nation in the 1870s. I suppose there's always a question about endowments, and there's always a temptation to spend the principle for worthy causes instead of living of the income of the portfolio. And there are those who say the Vatican endowment should be used to pay the financial liabilities of dioceses, which are financially independent entities.

Well, as I've said above, I don't particularly like the Vatican, although I admit that there has to be some central structure in a worldwide church; so I'm glad there's no need for me to contribute to the support of the Vatican. Except for the separate contribution I give to Catholic Relief Services (to build those water systems and set up microfinance and fair trade cooperatives), my church contributions stay in my own area.

Ed, I have to say I don't know how to respond to you. Your vision seems to be clouded by anger, and I'm not sure where that comes from. I have no animosity against people who have left the Catholic Church. I have many formerly Catholic friends who have found a home among the Unitarians, and to a lesser extent with Quakers and Episcopalians. I have often been tempted to join them because I have many frustrations with the institutional church, but I have decided to stay. I have found that at least within my own parish and the institutions where I do volunteer work, I have have an effect on what happens.

And then you come up with this cockamamie horseshit statement that you think I see child molestation victims as "the enemy." Actually, for most of my adult life (1970-1980 and 1993-present) I have considered The Bishop to be the enemy (we had a really wonderful bishop 1980-1993). And John Paul II reigned as Pope 1978-2005 and I had nothing but disdain for him. My opinion of the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is "guarded."

As I partly indicated above, we had a remarkable bishop in Sacramento, Francis Quinn from 1979-1993. I first had contact with Bishop Quinn when I moved to Sacramento in 1980. Bishop Quinn dealt with child molestation complaints very quickly, and arranged for psychiatric treatment for the victims and referred cases to the district attorney for prosecution. The standard settlement amounts for child molestation in our diocese were $25,000 and $40,000, which was a fairly large sum of money in the 1980s. The offending priests were removed from ministry and people accepted the settlements, and made no more complaints. and then this whole thing came up again in about 2002-2003, and the Bishop of Orange in Southern California made a number of settlements at a million dollars each. All of a sudden, the attorneys for every Catholic-church child molestation victim demanded a million dollars. Some attorney lined up all the Sacramento victims who had been paid a long time ago, and demanded a million bucks apiece on their behalf - and the diocese paid, and sold property and close schools and laid off employees to pay the debt. Mind you, almost all of these victims had accepted settlements 15 to 20 years earlier.

So yeah, my diocese is a case of people having done the right thing at the right time, and then having to pay the price all over again when the story hit the press in the early 2000s. No, I don't blame the victims - but I DO question the attorneys, and I wonder how much the victims received after they attorneys were paid.

And Ed, you talk about my hearing Vatican propaganda on this child molestation issue. Well, actually, the Vatican said almost nothing about this issue until Benedict visited the United States shortly after his election as Pope - and what he did was apologize to the victims and scold the bishops for their slow handling of this scandal. He did not make any statement about excessive settlements at all, and I actually have heard no official complaints about excessive settlements. The bishops aren't in a position where they CAN complain, because so many bishops handled these matters so badly. But I'm paying the bill; and I can look at a hundred settlements of a million dollars each in my diocese, people who had already received a settlement - and I can say myself without any prompting from propaganda, that a million bucks apiece is a hell of a lot of money.

But Ed, I think you have some anger issues here, issues that are preventing you from carrying on a completely rational discussion. Get a grip on yourself, man!

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 08:36 PM

I could do with a new pair of shoes..

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:57 PM

By the way, my last year at prep school when I was 13, one of the other 6th Form boys (also therefore 13) got off with a young school matron - she was probably about 20. The entire school was mad with jealousy, lucky bastard he was.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:51 PM

As to paedophilia a woman has just been sentenced for screwing a 12 year old boy 200 times. He was given a pair of trainers as a reward for the first 100.

As to religion and its organisation, they are not NECESSARY evils, but unnecessary ones.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Ed, I'm genuinely hard pressed to understand what kiddy-fiddling priests have to do with this thread. It's not as if The Pope condoned it. Tragically, all sort of organisations have been infiltrated by paedophiles - from Churches to schools to hospitals to Children's care-homes. I am fairly sure that most victims of child abuse were *not* abused by priests. In fact I would be staggered if most victims from a Catholic background were abused by priests. So the Church is not some sort of unique vehicle for child-abuse, but the revulsion may be all that stronger, given the particular position of trust and responsibility that the abusers occupied.

The way in which the Church tried to cover it up was horrendous, but then governments, councils, schools, healthcare trusts, social services departments: they've all had their scandals. Aren't they all equally bad?

Moreover, why does Joe Offer and any other passing Catholic, have to carry the cross that you have crafted for them for these offences of others? I don't get it.

If you need to lash out, why not lash out at the more statistically correct groups of perpetrators - fathers of young girls, uncles of young girls. All of them. Most paedophiles, the vast majority, fall into one of those two groups. You'd still be mad to carry on against them, just less mad than you seem at present.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:43 PM

Strictly speaking, the compensation money has already been collected from the parishioners, so they aren't paying it as it is no longer theirs. However, it was obviously mostly given in good faith, so the Church has effectively taken it under false pretences. Whether they did that unwittingly or not is another question and not easily answered but what Joe says is quite true - that in a sense all Catholics were betrayed at least to some degree, but I don't think anyone has any doubt as to who was betrayed the most.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 09:00 AM

Joe, Joe Joe,

You say I need reading glasses...I suggest (and it's just a suggestion) you take off you rose coloured RC glasses before you post....maybe just for a few minutes and once.... and think a bit from the perspective of a sexual abuse victim.

At times you do show glimmers of sympathy, but as the song says "but, then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like"....in your case repeating Vatican propaganda or whining about the money.... (Wasn't it Cyndi Lauper who sang "money changes everything"? Yes, the RC organization suckered many parishes for their sins and omissions. But, as a RC, you just have to "such it up" and move on. Dwelling on it, and waiting until you are dragged to the courts does not indicate sympathy nor compassion for victims and a resolve to do your best to help make a wrong a right. Parishioners live with costs of the RC mistakes...who can be paid....abuse victims (and their families) must live with a lifetime sentence of the results (check out the long term impacts of sexual abuse by those in authority).

There is really no point in going on and on about your fine RC experiences and stellar RC knowledge. It is fine that you are an internal protester and stuck with a sinking ship....do you feel you need a medal for that.   All your RC knowledge, internal protests and concern for the local RC finances does not matter to the victims, nor those who lost faith in the RC church, but, not God.

You seem to have big time contempt for former RCs who chose another, non RC route, and it does not look good on you (to me, that is). What's with that? Could some of the early RC programming be in conflict with the scatterings of compassion, libertarian and logic you often show in your posts?

Maybe there has been compassion shown to many RC abuse of victims in the USA, I do not live there. But,from accounts that I read it was mostly because the victims, after frustration about no RC action, came forward early and launched legal action, there was little of that before....yes, compassion after being forced or embarrassed into some form of action to save the imiage of the RC church. We see more and more cases around the world where the RC church has not aggressively sought out sexual abusers, nor proactively reached out to locate, assist, and show compassion and attempt to heal those abused. Just read the newspapers outside the USA.

Read the link I sent again....the article from the victim....it is not about money, it's about accountability, compassion and

You say "I think that all Catholics were betrayed by the molesters and by the bishops who covered up the crimes, and it's those Catholics, not the molesters or the bishops, who are paying the million-dollar settlements"

... And you wish we believe you when you say you have and see compassion for the victims, after saying that?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 04:12 AM

The point here, for Joe Offer's benefit mainly, but perhaps a few others, is that this is not a "Catholic" thing, it spreads to people who do not follow that particular, or indeed any superstition.

You do not have to understand catholicism to state that a foreigner who exerts influence on a lot of British people should not abuse that position by commenting on UK proposed legislation.

Full stop.

Nothing to do with the Irish bishops taking their time to apologise and being carpeted at a meeting in the Vatican last week. Nothing to do with the ever emerging stories of abuse. Nothing to do with the millions of people who find solace and purpose by following a traditional religion and don't have to consider the history of it's leaders.

If we have to speak of fundamental issues, then rather than sexually frustrated priests, it may be more useful to speak of the more overall abuse. Making vulnerable people feel guilty is a rather fundamental aspect of most cults, and catholicism with it's mea culpa regime is an example that can and does shame human history. the riches of the Vatican compared with ragged arsed kids in Latin America is a comparison that at the very least asks a few questions? Even within Europe, I recall the poorest villages in Malta when I was visiting, with little running water, bare foot people and all clubbing together to build the huge monstrosities with gilded statues, massive ceilings all to the glory og God. What about the glory of building a bit of infrastructure for the village then? No. church first, live second.

If you were an alien visitor, you would scratch your space helmet at cults and their influence on people, especially vulnerable ones.

Now... the question from Joe was about questioning the right of the church to moralise?

Please don't get me started. My overall view is in the link I posted a few posts back to Johnny Fartpants.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 02:21 AM

Well, whatever, Ed. It's obvious you have not carefully read what I have to say.

My primary attitude toward the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, is disdain and mistrust - not only on the issue of child molestation. Nonetheless, they provide the structure within which I function, so I consider them to be a necessary evil. They gave me a very good education, and I was employed by Catholic entities off and on over the years. I have fought all my life to right the wrongs of my church - and I haven't given up the fight.

The structure of the Catholic Church is riddled with corruption - I have no doubt about that. Nonetheless, within that structure, many wonderful people continue to function and to do wonderful work. Corruption is part of the nature of organizational structures. We can allow that corruption to overcome and paralyze us, or we can do what's right despite the shortcomings of the structures in which we work. And I have to say that there was no such corruption in the Catholic institutions where I was educated and employed.

The reality of life is that wherever we are, we have to coexist with a lot of assholes - and believe it or not, the assholes also have a right to exist. We can keep running away from them or blaming them for our own failures, or we can plant our feet on the ground and do what we need to do. I choose the latter.

For me, the primary tenets of the Christian faith are love of God and love of neighbor (and that requires one to also love the assholes). I agree wholeheartedly that many Christians do not follow those tenets, but their failures do not mean that I am required to abandon my faith and go elsewhere. So, instead, I do the best I can to keep the assholes honest.

What in the world gave you the impression that I think of the victims of child abuse as "the enemy"? I think of molesting priests and coverup bishops as "the enemy" - and I think of the children who were molested as completely innocent victims. I have nothing but sympathy for them - how could you think otherwise? You need to get better reading glasses or something...

HOWEVER, I think that all Catholics were betrayed by the molesters and by the bishops who covered up the crimes, and it's those Catholics, not the molesters or the bishops, who are paying the million-dollar settlements.

But still, I think that million-dollar settlements are excessive, and that's the going price for Catholic Church child molestation settlements in the U.S. - not for other molestation victims, but only for those molested in Catholic institutions. It's absolutely true that no amount of money can compensate the victim of a serious crime like child molestation. No amount of money can heal the victim. If the bishops and molesters were paying the price, I'd say they should all pay until they're bankrupt. But it's not the bishops and molesters who are paying - it's the ordinary Catholics who make regular contributions on Sunday. In my diocese, I'd guess the bill comes to about $1,000 for each contributor to pay off our $100 million in settlements.

I certainly believe there should be just and generous compensation, but our contributions have made a hundred millionaires - and haven't healed them of the harm that was done. Still, the money has been paid. I'm not asking for it back - but I still contend it did not solve the problem, and it cost a lot of money that was paid by people who did not cause the problem. But that's done.

Now, let's take a look at your little list:

1) Recognize the wrong that was committed....
2) Do not dwell on the costs of repairing damages done by those in your organization.
3) Reach out to the victims and spare no expense to heal them and their families.
4) Recognize that sexual abuse at youth often has a deep impact on those abused....
5) Do not put those abused through the a legal system that puts them through the pain again.

Ed, everything that you suggest has already been done. I gave you a couple of (hostile) links above, and here (click) is the official study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops. Click here for the entire list of documents issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops on the sexual abuse of children.

OK, let me repeat my family analogy, so you can read it carefully and tell us exactly where the fallacy is:

What happens in a family when Sweet Uncle Chester molests a child? At first, the child or children say nothing, because they're confused and maybe scared. Then, when they say something, adults don't understand. When the adults begin to understand, they can't believe that such a nice man would molest children, and they're sure the children must be confused somehow. And when they finally understand, Chester's wife puts up a fuss and stops the family from doing anything for a while, because she feels she and her husband have been betrayed by the family. Finally, somebody calls the police - but years may have passed since the first incident. Many molestation cases are hidden in families for generations.

Well, the same dynamic happens in a church - except that in a church or any institution, the institution gets blamed and the molester is largely forgotten; and the church ends up with a damaged reputation and a big bill to pay.

The big difference between molestation in a family and molestation in a church, is that the family is not financially liable for crimes that take place within the family. They may have to pay bills for treatment, but not million-dollar settlements.

That being said, yes it is an absolute shame and a scandal that such things happen in churches, and coverups and callousness are inexcusable. The Catholic Church should have had systems in place that made it easier to detect, report, respond to such crimes.

Ed, that's the way child molestation works. It's a crime that can stay hidden for years, even generations - and when it's finally discovered, the natural response of people is to deny it. And when they finally come to acknowledge the allegations, they have no idea how to respond - because there IS no good way to respond.
As a federal security clearance investigator over 25 years, I investigated fifteen or twenty child molesters who had applied for security clearances, and I reviewed dozens of police reports and interviewed molesters and police officers and child protective officers. I know what happens.

No, the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is not over. There is much that should be done that hasn't been done yet. If you want an honest and detailed assessment of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States, take a look at this article. It was written by Kathleen McChesney, a retired FBI executive who served as the first executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection from 2002 to 2005. the article was published by the Franciscans in the St. Anthony Messenger. I think you will be surprised at its honesty.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

Joe O

In a closing thought,,,before I retire for the night (different time zones).:

The abused are not the enemy.

Those who challenge the RC Church to seek the highest Christian standards are not the enemy.

The enemy is lurking within.

Personal and internal RC peace may elude you until you face the real enemy directly, with an open mind and Christian heart.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:03 PM

Joe O

You speak of armchair experts….as if you have some inside feeling on the lifelong pain and life changing experiences of the abused innocent children (now adults) by by those representing the RC church organization.

I see your pain is the loss of image (I dare to say respect) for a church you put much trust in . Your challenge is to rise from the ashes of something you were likely not a party to and to be Christian enough not to put your frustration on those wronged, the abused. For their pain and impact from this abuse is broad and a lifelong curse for them. As a committed Christian, I expect you would be more humble and caring than that.

You seem comforted to dwell in the financial reparations grudgingly (only after legal suites were filed) paid by parishioners (guided by the RC organization) for the crimes committed by those in the service of the RC organization. Maybe you got suckered by the only part of the RC organization that could have intervened and made a difference to stop the shameful unchristian activity and did not knowingly do so….Well that is your internal RC cross to bear, not mine. (I chose to turn my back on it, remember)?

I often say to my children, saying sorry is easy and not enough. It rings hollow if you do not show that you understand what was done was wrong, proactively make reparations to those wronged and ensure them that that measures are in place to ensure it will not happen again. How does the RC church measure up to that elementary standard? To me it is a failing grade.

Why do I reject your analogy of incest in a family verses sexual abuse in a corporation? There a multitude of family structures, many healthy and functional, some less so, and others totally dysfunctional. A family is a small closed unit with limited resources to deal with problems occuring. But, a cooperation, like the catholic church, has a diversity of members, is open in structure and has a multitude of resources and finances to deal with complex issues….if it chooses to deal with them.

I realize the Vatican has promoted analogies with the family unit, to explain away responsibility for the RC sexual abuse. It may work and be comforting for you, but not for me.

Here are a few simple measures to put this sad era behind the Rc church and to start over:

1) Recognize the wrong that was committed and fix the problem Seek credible and independent help to root out those who abused. Do this in an open, public manner, not behind closed doors.
2) Do not dwell on the costs of repairing damages done by those in your organization.
3) Reach out to the victims and spare no expense to heal them and their families.
4) Recognize that sexual abuse at youth often has a deep impact on those abused, on their mental health and on their relationships with family and loved ones. Reach out in a Christian and charitable way to help those impacted to make them healthy and healed. Offer and pay for professional help.
5) Do not put those abused through the a legal system that puts them through the pain again.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:33 PM

Plantiff says he wants to save Catholic Church
NANCY KING
The Cape Breton Post
26/ 06/ 08

SYDNEY — Ron Martin says he's not out to get the Catholic Church, he's out to try to save it.
This week, Martin filed a class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Antigonish claiming it failed to protect the children in its care when it became aware of sexual abuse by some of its priests, and also names the Roman Catholic Church and a church official.
Martin was a 12-year-old children's choir member at St. Agnes parish in New Waterford when he claims he was abused by Rev. Hugh Vincent MacDonald. For years, the only person Martin told about the abuse was his wife. Then, in 2002, his brother David committed suicide, leaving behind a note disclosing he had also been abused by MacDonald when he was an altar server. Martin had never known about had happened to his younger brother.
"I went through a tremendous amount of guilt because of that — I thought, what if I had said something years ago?" Martin says. "I've taken a long time to work through that guilt and now I'm not going to own that guilt. That guilt belongs to the people who were responsible for all of this.
"I had to identify my brother's body and I promised him that I would see justice for him and for everybody else."
David's revelations launched a police investigation that resulted in the laying of 27 charges, involving a number of complainants, against MacDonald. He died in 2004, before the case could go to trial.
The lawsuit, which contains allegations not yet proven in court and was filed under Nova Scotia's new Class Proceedings Act, involves claims that MacDonald and several other priests sexually abused children in their care between 1962 and 2008.
While some survivors of abuse by priests turn away from the church, that wasn't the case for Martin. He describes himself as a very active Catholic, serving as a eucharistic minister and lector, folk choir director and in other roles.
"That's been the most difficult thing, because I feel I'm sitting on both sides of the fence — I feel like I'm part of the defence and I'm the person bringing forth the legal suit. But I'm still trying to protect the church that I love. It's really bizarre."
He did pull back from leadership roles after his brother's death, saying he didn't feel the support from some priests or from then Bishop Colin Campbell. Martin switched to a new parish, where he was welcomed, and he and his wife are raising their eight children as members of the church.
As for why the diocese should be held accountable for the actions of an individual, Martin says that individual was placed there by church leadership.
"They said we've trained this man, we've ordained this man and we bring this man to you as leader of your parish, and we put him there in trust."
If those church officials knew that MacDonald had broken that trust before moving him to St. Agnes, they placed children there at risk, he adds.
Martin says he approached the diocese, asking it to release a statement acknowledging its responsibility for abuse involving some of its priests, and issue a public apology. He then went to Halifax lawyer John McKiggan, who has represented other abuse survivors, and suggested working with the diocese to develop a solution that wouldn't cause survivors to be revictimized by having to turn to the courts.
Bishop Raymond Lahey appeared open to the idea, Martin adds, noting he had dealt with similar circumstances when he served in Newfoundland. He also met face to face with Lahey not long after David's death.
"I said to him, I will not stop this until we get what we're looking for — that being a public apology and acceptance of responsibility.
"If I have to go to the highest court in the land, then that's where we're going, because I'm not letting this go. I've lost a brother because of it, I've lost part of my own life because of it."
Three years of negotiations between Martin and the diocese followed, but he says they failed, with no offer ever being put on the table.
In a news release this week, Lahey acknowledged that sexual abuse did occur with certain priests, some of whom were criminally convicted. The release indicated the diocese has offered a less adversarial settlement process to victims and diocese lawyer Bruce MacIntosh said a number of complaints have been dealt with, although he declined to say how many have been settled.
Martin says he was disappointed by Lahey's remarks, saying he has no knowledge of any process in place to assist victims.
In 1990, Martin wrote a letter to MacDonald offering him forgiveness, but asking him to take responsibility for what he had done by seeking forgiveness from the church and from his other victims. He didn't receive a reply, but Martin found the exercise to be freeing.
Filing the lawsuit is also liberating, MacDonald says.
"It's saying I have accepted what happened to me and I want to make sure it never happens again in the church that I belong to and the church that I love. It's freeing for me because it's going to free the church.
"I don't do any of this with malice, I don't do any of this with vengeance. I do this because I care — I care for the people who have been abused and hurt by the church, I care for the church that has allowed that to happen, and I care for the Diocese of Antigonish."
On the day the class-action was announced, five people came forward to identify themselves as abuse survivors, for the first time. None of them may ultimately join the suit, but Martin says that in itself makes it worthwhile.
Martin says he knows some people may look at him differently, now that he's gone public with what happened to him as a child, and he wondered how the lawsuit would be received by others in such a predominantly Catholic region. But he adds he's been amazed by the number of calls of support he's received.
"I worried about what people would say, like, 'what are you doing this now for?'" Martin says. "I have had calls from all over this island saying thank you for finally doing something because we know so many people who have been affected by this and the church just keeps sweeping it away, and if we're ever going to have a church that we can look at with pride, then something is going to have to change and this is the change they were hoping for."


By the way, Joe O the parish settled the civil lawsuit a few months ago...after years of ignoring the abuse and thoose abused. When the cases first came forward, the Bishop (Colin Campbell) blamed the children for luring the priests into performing sexual acts. You guessed it, nothing happened while he was Bishop. Once the civil suit was launched, Bishop Lahey was tasked to settle it out of court (parish must pay) and say he was sorry for the church. A few months ago Bishop Lahey was charged by the RCMP for importing child pornography.   Allegations later surfaced that he was also involved in improper sexual activity as a priest, and the childrens allegations (at the time) were brushed under the church and police carpets at the time. He is now facing thepolice charges, and the latter matter is being investigated.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

Odd...half of my post dropped off. Can't redo it now, am off to dinner. Here is the link for you Joe O:

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

And Ed, I see you still haven't found logic capable of refuting my family analogy.

Patience, Joe O I will respond, though I have partially done so in my reply to steam'in Willies post. However,   I do notice your family analyogy is one that the Vatican has put forward before. Coincidence?

I work during the day and do not have time from woirk to respond to long posts, nor debate.

While you claim to have good knowledge of the RC church in the USA, it puzzles why you ask some odd questions about what I was doing in the 70s? I was in University for the first half...but, fail to see the logical relationship to the debate.

Here is some good reading for you from a person who is a faithful RC, suffered from the sexual abuse, suffered with his family for years and decided he had to come forward to save the RC church from itself. And, this is recent stuff....not from the 70s.


http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?sid=148036&sc=145

Note that this is the same parish (Antigonish Nova Scotia Canada) where there was much sexual abuse. When it was brought before the Bishop (Colin Campbell) he publically blamed the children for luring the priests into sin. He was kept in office for some time after....you guesses it little action happened under his post. After the person in the above article approached the RC Church to admit to the wrongs and appoligise (with little avail) he launched a class action suit. Only then did the church act and somewhat deal with the abuse (mostly financial). The person who was put in charge of the compensation package, Bishop Lahey then charged with importing child pornography (just a few months ago). Allegations have come forward that this same bishop was involved in showing male sexual pornorography to minors while a priest....which the church and authorities may not have even investigated at that time.

Anyway, be patient Joe....it seems that you are just getting too emotional and it is getting i the way of reasoned debate.

Be back to you after I have dinner.

---

Faulty link fixed - it was hiding your text. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:37 PM

Catholics did take the child molestation scandal seriously, very seriously - and they still do. In most cases, the offenders HAVE been fired, Ed. They're gone, no longer functioning as priests. The "corporation" has paid damages in the billions of dollars - all donated by people who had nothing to do with the crimes committed. Many innocent employees lost their jobs because their salaries were used to pay settlements. The Pope has apologized time and time again to the victims, and bishops have been sacked or moved to sinecure positions. The job is mostly done in the U.S. It has a good start in Ireland, but there's a long way to go there. Other scandals will be uncovered in other nations, and new incidents will be discovered in the U.S., Ireland, and other locations - but at least the Catholic Church has acknowledged the problem and has developed ways to respond to it.

It's true that this should have been done long before (and in a huge number of cases, it WAS done long ago), but that's water under the bridge. One of the primary organizations that has fought the child molestation in the Catholic church in the U.S., is http://bishop-accountability.org (click). Follow the link to their database, and you will see the stories of all known priest sex offenders in in the U.S. The stories are not happy ones. Sometimes, it took years for action to be taken. But for the most part, the cases have been dealt with by now - and the Catholic Church paid a huge price. If you want more information, look at the Website of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, http://www.snapnetwork.org/. I have to say that I don't really like either of these organizations. They seem far more interested in vengeance, than they are in healing the damage done and preventing further damage. Still, they provide worthwhile information.


And Ed, I see you still haven't found logic capable of refuting my family analogy.

I also have to say that I'm getting really tired of the oft-repeated contention that since the Catholic Church did wrong in the child molestation scandal, it no longer has any right to speak out against anything it sees as injustice. Is it only the perfect who have a right to speak? Do you claim perfection?

So, what ELSE do you want, Ed?

And why are you speaking out about all this now? Where were you when I started speaking out about on this issue in the 1970s???

Sometimes, it really pisses me off when armchair experts come on here and make their solemn condemnations of all things Catholic, as if they knew anything about the subject. Since the late 1960's, I've called myself part of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church. I've taken a lot of lumps for that from Catholics and non-Catholics alike, people who tell me I can't really be Catholic because I don't obey the Pope's every wish - I even lost a church job for being outspoken. So, now these Internet experts come in as the problem is finally nearing resolution, and they issue their all-encompassing condemnations. Even people who have worked for years to expose and resolve the problem, are included in their condemnations.



-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:36 AM

GUEST,Steamin' Willie
I am not sure that any love was in fact involved, but most were not defined in adults in any way. I am not sure if buggery was the main sexual act involved (versus oral sex)...and most folks who are homophobic tend to demonize homosexuality with that example (though buggery is not limited to homosexuality, or even human to human sex,of course).

Your analogy with a corporation is much more valid than Joe Os with a family (which I will directly address later). Raping or sexually abusing employees is taken as a serious offense in most major western corporations. If you do it, or are reported to do it, I suspect there would be serious internal consequences (possibly firings), authorities involved and mitigation measures put in place to limit it happening in the organization. Much attention would be placed in healing and compensating the grieved employee(s). Not so with the RC church, it seems.

If a major corporation entrusted with some level of protecting the environment pollutes, than the offense is obviously taken more seriously than pollution from a corporation whose task is heavy manufacturing. Well, the same goes for the RC church. This church philosophy is that it has been entrusted to be the guardians of Christ's (aka Gods)mission on earth. That alone makes the way they dealt with sexual abuse and rape of children more damning in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:07 AM

Just one point, having had time to read some of the longer tomes here..

It would appear "we" have a simplified view of the buggering of children.

Children were buggered by priests, but don't confuse that with being buggered by chartered accountants. The children were in the care of the priest in his position as a figurehead of the church, and the church didn't do what the law requires of them; to report crimes to the appropriate authority.

Whether the church as a whole is comfortable with this or not is irrelevant; decisions were made by church authorities to break the law in order to harbour criminals.   The Vatican end has to either sack the employees for bringing the company into disrepute, (disown criminal activity in their name) or accept a degree of corporate culpability.

I am somewhat pleased to see the pope has made it clear his disgust at the actions of the actual priests, but he has yet to address the corporate culpability within all this.

So... with that in mind, who is he to moralise to governments? (The thread, in case anybody has forgot.)

Oh, in case anybody thinks the terminology I used is homophobic; Two men are capable of making love. Priests with children? Buggering is an apt term.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:19 AM

Ed, you fail to define the flaw in my analogy between a family and a church where child molestations occur. Where's the flaw?

What happens in a family when Sweet Uncle Chester molests a child? At first, the child or children say nothing, because they're confused and maybe scared. Then, when they say something, adults don't understand. When the adults begin to understand, they can't believe that such a nice man would molest children, and they're sure the children must be confused somehow. And when they finally understand, Chester's wife puts up a fuss and stops the family from doing anything for a while, because she feels she and her husband have been betrayed by the family. Finally, somebody calls the police - but years may have passed since the first incident. Many molestation cases are hidden in families for generations.

Well, the same dynamic happens in a church - except that in a church or any institution, the institution gets blamed and the molester is largely forgotten; and the church ends up with a damaged reputation and a big bill to pay.

The big difference between molestation in a family and molestation in a church, is that the family is not financially liable for crimes that take place within the family. They may have to pay bills for treatment, but not million-dollar settlements.

That being said, yes it is an absolute shame and a scandal that such things happen in churches, and coverups and callousness are inexcusable. The Catholic Church should have had systems in place that made it easier to detect, report, respond to such crimes.

But don't think for a moment that any program is going to stop molesters. Most likely, any molester will commit a number of crimes against a number of victims before he is caught. There are no sure-fire methods of detecting potential molesters; and there are no sure-fire treatments to cure molesters, either.

In 1968, the members of my seminary class were the first in the diocese to go through a battery of psychological tests and interviews that were supposed to root out people with psychosexual problems. The process was only moderately embarrassing and demeaning at the time, but it got worse. I understand that in later years, psychologists required seminarians to look at child pornography and other types of pornography to see if the young men would be sexually aroused by it. And there is no evidence that any of this extensive and expensive testing did much to prevent child molestation. However, I have to admit that I felt there was an unhealthy sexual "charge" to the atmosphere when I was a college seminarian - guys hitting on other guys and such. After the testing, six or seven members of my class didn't show up for class one Monday morning, and we learned they had been asked to leave the seminary. And the sexual charge disappeared, so maybe the testing DID do some good.

In the US in the 1970s, the Catholic bishops built several treatment centers for priest with sexual or alcohol problems, and they spent millions on treatment programs and believed these programs would "cure" errant priests. Well, the treatment programs didn't work, either.

So, Ed, it's not that people didn't care or that nothing was done. It's that the programs the bishops believed in, didn't work. Yes, there were far too many coverups and far too much callousness, but this really didn't happen in most cases. More often, people just didn't know how to handle these problems, and they made horrible mistakes.

Ed, you seem to think that the all-powerful Pope should have stepped in and told those nasty molesters not to molest, and they should have obeyed since they were priests and supposed to be obedient - and since they didn't obey, the Pope was a failure. It just doesn't work that way. Nobody knows how to prevent child molestation, and nobody knows what's the right thing to do once it happens.

The whole thing was a horrible mess, and the Catholic Church handled it horribly - there's no doubt about that. The Catholic Church in the U.S. has developed all sorts of controls that are supposed to prevent such a scandal from happening again - but who knows if the controls will work? And will these controls be implemented in other countries, and will they work there? Who knows???

Ed, you say the pope should take charge of this whole thing, but I don't think that's a good idea. It's much better handled on a national level, because there all sorts of cultural implications to take into consideration. That being said, the current Pope has dealt quite sternly with national councils of bishops who have not dealt with this problem seriously. John Paul II did very little, and barely even acknowledged the problem. For the last ten years of his papacy, he was probably too sick to function as Pope. He should have resigned, but he saw himself as a living martyr, suffering for his people. Give me a break....

If you want to get a good perspective of the child molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, watch the Meryl Streep movie Doubt. Maybe then you'll understand that there are no easy answers.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM

"Bill ....liberal in name only it seems."???

I am a slow ersatz liberal,I guess. I don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:23 PM

"That may be a reason, but not a good excuse for clear inaction, and deception from inside the Church structure.

( I stopped short of adding lack of compassion for the victims....but now feel that this should be added to my statement above, for respect to the abused).

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:22 PM

Bill ....liberal in name only it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:18 PM

Joe O

Maybe my concept of accountability of the Popemay seems skewed, or even foggy from inside the RC church, which yoiu claim has a complex old boys organization. That may be a reason, but not a good excuse for clear inaction, and deception from inside the Church structure.

To me the person at the top of any organization has some level of responsibility, (to stop clearly identified cruel and illegal sexual abuse and clean up the house) or they should step aside. This happens in other organizations and governments...even the ones who do not claim to be holy and representing christ on earth in any way. I would expect no less from the RC church and the Pope(s) as it's leader and only person who could impact more rapid change. n fact, expect more than I would expect from a company....let's use a car maker or governmnt department, as examples.

You say in defense that the crimes were committed by by individuals, not the RC church. Well most crimes in society are committed by individuals. It is the responsibility of organizations and people in a position of power, (they work on hahalf of), to put a halt to it. Many organizations succeed in halting individual wrong doing and in making changes to limit others from doing the same thing. The RC church failed to do this....and failed over decades., not months or years. Should we expect less of the RC church than a private company or a government department? Given its mandate, I expect more. Your argument that it is the individual not the church who committed a crime reminds me of the USA gun lobby defense statement that "guns kill, not people".

Your faulty analogy to the church and a family is a red herring, only serving to cloud, rather than clearify the sad and unchristian history of abuse in the RC church. Additionally, maybe some churches did not have cases of abuse. But many churches do. Looking at the reasons why could provide guidance for future structural change. But, does nothing to justify harm caused by decadades of sexual abuse inside the RC church that was condoned, covered up, and allowed to continue to grow with little concern for the health of those impacted nor the impact on the innocent faithful.

I suspect that what we know of cases of child sexual abuse are only the tip of the iceberg, as many victims and abusers arenow older or deceased and chose not to come forward and face the public embarassment.

My mother was a very faithful RC who blindly believed that the RC church could do no wrong. Luckily, my father (a christian man) was an alert parent and skeptic. I believe my father spared me and my family from some of the horrors a few of my friends experienced inside the holiest places in the RC church. There parents unknowingly offering them up to these so called holy men.

Oh well....I will not labour this topic. You have your views and perspectives. I have mine. So be it.

It is related to the topic posted. But, possibly takes the discussion away from the direct theme .

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Royston
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:04 PM

Are there differences between the experience of Gay Muslims and Gay Christians? Probably, but it depends a lot on where you happen to be and in what sort of a community you happen to be a part of.

In the UK, Gay Muslims receive a good deal more abuse people for the fact of being Muslim than they do for being gay - whether or not any homophobic abuse comes from their own faith or ethnic communities.

The only significant Qur'anic reference to homosexuality is the story of Lut (Lot in The Bible). It is the same story in both traditions, the same doubts and disagreements apply. Did God destroy the cities of the plains for homosexual acts per se, or was it for the total collapse of any sort of law, decency and order resulting ultimately in rape, including the rape of angels. Whereas people always quote Sodom and Gomorrah as a justification for homophobia, Gibea was destroyed in much the same way but following a heterosexual rape (Judges? I think).

The only serious proscriptions on sexual conduct in the Qur'an relate to promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.

So homophobia is essentially a set of cultural baggage. I's that way for Muslims, for Christians, for Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. It's also that way for the atheist or agnostic bigots.

In Muslim communities, the community is far more important than any individual, but every individual is incredibly important because the community can't exist without them and it depends on everybody showing an equal level of respect, care and courtesy to everyone else.

So a gay man or woman can be known to be homosexual and can normally expect to be treated with exactly the same public respect and courtesy as any other member of the community.

Now, that person might be the topic of intense gossip (either salacious, supportive or of the disapproving type) that's just people being people, to expect and receive respect and courtesy is all that anyone (Gay or Straight) really aspires to. There will be some bigots that use faith as a justification for their prejudice, but faith can't be the reason for it because others will find their faith motivates them to be compassionate and respectful.

The caveat for a Muslim may be that you have to play your role in the status quo. Acknowledge people's sensibilities, be respectful, behave according to the community's understood norms of politeness, modesty etc. It's the same for any private behaviour, gay or straight. Is that a bad thing? Do what you like but do it privately and respectfully?

It isn't a lot different, in my experience of both types of community, to some Christian religious communities in the USA, or in Europe (Germany, Switzerland spring to mind).

If you are in Saudi Arabia, be afraid. Very afraid. If you are in Iran, keep your head well down. In Asia / South East Asia, communities can be surprisingly tolerant, embracing even. Male intimacy (non-sexual) is an accepted and normal way of behaving. There is far more of a mystical tradition of Islam that stems from the pre-Islamic religions and it can be very much easier to be a part of a sexual minority - but more so if you fit the template created for those minorities. In some places it is easier to be an effeminate gay man than it is to be, or to appear to be, more typically masculine.

It's complicated. It varies. Yes, allowing for all the variables it is probably as easy to be an openly gay Muslim as it is to be an openly gay Catholic. Maybe even easier, in some ways. Islam does not "pronounce" on anything - there is no structure for pronouncing. Sure, it doesn't stop some Muslims from pronoucing on all sorts of things but they are rather like the sound of one hand clapping - they have no authority and Muslims have to decide to take it or leave it.

What you learn from a thread like this is that with all the apparatus and authority that The Pope has, individual Catholics will still, naturally, follow their own conscience as they go about life. You can't assume anything about the ethical conduct of a Catholic person, just because The Pope asks them to act in certain ways. The same for an Anglican. The same for a Muslim, a member of a faith that has no central authority whatever. You have to get to know and understand individuals - a good rule for any situation.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 02:59 PM

Well, Ed, I still think your perspective is skewed. You are looking at the Catholic Church through a purely Machiavellian perspective. There was validity in a Machiavellian perspective in the Middle Ages - but even then, the Pope was one of many power brokers in Europe; and the ultimate power rested in a balance among all those centers of power, not in any one individual. You don't seem to be able to let go of your thinking that the the Pope is (or was) an absolute dictator. Church history shows quite clearly that the Catholic Church was never an absolute dictatorship, even though it appeared to be so on paper. An org chart is a two-dimensional view of an organization, and most org charts show a supreme authority on top with lots of powerless worker bees on the bottom. Managers like to think that's the way their organizations work, but managerial thought is rarely accurate.

In actuality, every organization has many power centers, some constructive and some destructive; and the most effective power is only rarely at the top. I would say that it would be more correct to say that instead of being strictly a top-down hierarchy, the Catholic Church is a loosely-connected network of old-boy clubs. While they share the same faith and doctrine worldwide, dioceses operate with very little direction from Rome. HOWEVER, there is an old-boy network of bishops that consists of strong ties within nations and looser international ties. Men who were groomed to become bishops were sent to national seminaries like the North American College in Rome, where the old-boy networks of bishops have their roots. Those destined to become parish priests went to local or regional seminaries, where their own old-boy networks had their roots. I don't know how it is in other nations, but the priests who were able to raise money and build buildings were the ones with the most power in the U.S.

It appears that in the twentieth century, the power center of the old boys network of the Catholic Church in Ireland was the Archbishop of Dublin - not the Pope in Rome. And even the Archbishop was not an all-knowing authority. Religious orders have always been largely autonomous, often in conflict with the power structures of the dioceses where they operate. Bishops - even the unusually powerful Archbishop of Dublin - have little power to affect what happens within religious orders.

And still, it you look only at the tops of dioceses and religious orders, you're not getting a realistic picture. The rule that "all politics is local" applies very strongly to the Catholic church. Ultimately, whatever good or bad that happens in the Catholic Church, happens at the local level - with authorities in the diocese and Rome having very little knowledge or control. And it has always been that way - you can see the same phenomenon in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul. And it would be a mistake to think that lay people are completely powerless. Some are, but most parishes are at least partly controlled by powerful groups of lay people.

I'm not denying any of the problems or scandals of the Catholic Church. What I'm saying that if you want to understand and cure those problems, you have to have a realistic understanding of the institution - and an org chart understanding is just not realistic. I think you'll get a more realistic view of the Catholic Church if you see it as a body riddled with cancer. Some parts of a cancerous body remain healthy, and continue to function normally until the entire body dies. Now, the head of the body may or may not be healthy, but most likely you'll have little effect on the cancer by replacing the head. Now, please note that cancer grows in separate parts of the body, and tends to spread from one part to another. To cure the cancer, you have to treat ALL the cancerous parts, not the head.

To a large part, Mudcatters have an overly simplistic understanding of the child molestation scandal in the Catholic Church. As they see it, the Pope failed to control the bishops, who in turn failed to control the priests. As Ed explained it, the Pope is the boss of the bishops, who boss the priests, who boss the people - so, according to his logic, everybody failed to boss properly. Some have described the Catholic Church as a "child abuse conspiracy," and that's not really the case, either. While child molestation and abuse have been widespread in the Catholic Church, there are many parts of the Church where such scandals did not happen at all.

I know it's hard for some people to accept, but all of those crimes of child molestation and child abuse were committed by individuals, not by their superiors and not by their institutions. Each of these crimes was an autonomous act of an individual. Now, there need to be structures to root out and control these criminals, but it should be remembered that ultimately it is the individual who commits the crime. Bishops and others committed cowardly crimes by covering up acts of child abuse, but the coverups were done mostly to protect power and finances, not as some sort of conspiracy to abuse and molest children. And if the problem is to be brought under control, it must be understood that bishops have a very limited ability to control their priests and lay people. If a crime of child molestation happens within a family, to what extent is the family to blame? The same principle applies to a church. A church is no more able to control the actions of its members, than a family is able to control its members. There is some control and some responsibility in both situations, but that control and responsibility are limited. Child molestation is a very complex problem, and it cannot be resolved simply by a proper execution of authority. On the other hand, it will become far worse if people in authority ignore or cover up the problem.

I suppose you could propose that the Catholic Church solve its child abuse problem by operating on a strict, hierarchical authority structure, and some people think it does operate. But who would want to belong to an organization that is totally controlled by a benevolently dictatorial Old Guy in Rome? Yeah, there are a few extreme right-wing wackos who claim to obey only the Pope; but mostly they obey what they think the Pope ought to be saying. Catholics find the center of their spirituality in their parishes, not in Rome.

So, get this straight: the Catholic Church is not an org chart with the Pope at the top. It is a complex, highly political organism with an infinite number of largely autonomous power centers. Nothing significant in the Catholic Church can be accomplished by the command of one man, even if that man is sometimes called the Vicar of Christ on Earth. It just ain't that simple.

But nonetheless, Church politics is fascinating, and I've studied it all my life.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:20 PM

I have been away from this thread for a long time too and have only very quickly flicked over much above, but I am surprised not to see outrage that the UK government has succumbed to lobbyists to such an extent that the newly formulated obligation to give factually correct sex education is now to be watered down to such an extent that the purveyors of guilt and poison are to be allowed to attach to every piece of factual information they give the shibboleth that using the information will damn your immortal soul to eternal torment.

The more I see of religion the less I like it.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:48 AM

What Joes O says about the way the RC church operates today (especially in the USA, and lesser so in other western countries) is correct. Moves towards increased freedoms in the western world in the 60's and 70s gave more local and individual decision making freedoms, somewhat enshrined through Vatican 2 (I believe in the mid 60s to 70s) Adding to this was lower attendance in western RC churches, financial concerns, and questions arising from RC church scandals, such as internal pedophile. However, the RC Pope kept much of his power over the RC church on the books. I suspect many of the freedoms Joe refers to have not been extended nor accepted in many other world nations, those where many of the world's practising RCs live.

While I accept Joe O as an authority on some RC church doctrine matters, I do not accept his views as an authority on other RC issues (i.e. how the church handled cases of child sexual abuse) than any one else. He clearly has a pro RC church bias (not that there is anything wrong with that), as we likely all have other types of bias. I expect Joe is frustrated by what he sees as wrong, and is struggling to come to grips with what is important to him in a way that maintains his faith in the RC church (though he can speak for himself on this). An example of similar bias that comes to my mind is a mother of a criminal, who cannot see the bad in her child and grasps at any illogical reason to justify the bad behaviour. However, I do detect much frustration in Joe O with the church, as I suspect many others share. It is logical to retreat to what is more comforting, a place where you can make a real difference, the local parish and church. In frustratiion, I chose a different faith route....which some others did also. None are wrong, as inner peace is paramount.

Joe seems to explain away the way the RC church handled the pedophile priest cases as being a result of less control from the center, and more from the local parishes. I submit that this theory does not hold water under close examination. Below are some of the reasons I make this claim.

1)        Much of the reported sexual abuse occurred many years ago (50s, 60's 70's), when the Pope and RC Church center held greater control of local church affairs (no pun intended).
2)        Much of the religious freedoms Joe states are recent, and more pronounced in the USA.
3)        RC sexual abuse cases have been reported in many countries and have a similar pattern of denial, priest transfers, cover-up and a failure to inform the authorities, local parish structure or the faithful that the abusers were in their church.
4)        Some (if not much) of the countries where child sexual abuse occurred were countries where the RC church had much power and government acceptance and less power in the hands of the parish or the faithful….(i.e., Quebec Canada, and Ireland).
5)        Financial considerations have been paramount to the RC church. While many of the crimes occurred in the past, financial compensation occurs now…a convenient time to pass increased authority, including financial, to the local parishes.
6)        There are many cases of the transfer of pedophile priests by bishops to other locals….not innocent parishioners. Many of the transfers involved other bishops and countries. This leads one to suspect that knowledge of the abuse was broader than the local parish or bishop. Broad matters would tend to get the attention of Rome.
7)        In many of the cases children involved had advised authorities and more senor church representatives. In many cases this did not result in a change.
8)        Some of the priests having knowledge of the sexual abuse were promoted to higher levels in the church. This did not seem to be a career limiting thing (i.e. Bishop Lahey, who recently .was charged in Canada, and led RC church compensation negotiations for sex crime compensation).
9)        Many of the lay people in the RC church were unaware of what was happening in their own church and parish….even in cases where the Bishops knew.

As to the Pope speaking out, we all know he has the right to public ally state his personal view, or those he feels represents the RC church interests. Most in the liberated western RC churches do not pay much heed to what they do not support. However, this may differ in other countries, where church, state and personal freedoms are not as broad. There is a danger that the faithful would be less prepared to take the statements as likely as, let's say, those in the more freedom-loving USA. Additionally, papal statements can be used by bigots and shady political leaders as reasons to treat other folks badly.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:48 AM

Not wishing to derail this interesting (but ultimately self serving) debate, but as the original question was about the pope speaking some sense, the following make me chuckle...

Click on http://www.viz.co.uk/newstrip.html and select Johnny Fartpants.

I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:38 AM

I meant to say something before - Royston, I'd like to hear more from your perspective.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:35 AM

Royston, your situation is interesting.
Is it the case that Islam is more anti gay than Catholoicism?
Is it possible to be an openly practicing gay man within Islam?

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:39 PM

What Ed said in this message (6:51 PM) is quoted from the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is hosted by newadvent.org, which seems to believe that the 1911 edition is the latest word on things.

Many of the rules Ed cites are still on the books - but they're not the way the Catholic Church really functions. Conservatives tend to be legalistic, and often they get righteous and angry and frustrated when things don't go according to "the rules." What they can't understand is that things rarely function according to the rules, and the person "in charge" is rarely the one who makes things work.

Yeah, I suppose that Ake is right that the Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality - but in my 61 years as a Catholic, I have heard negative comments about homosexuals from the pulpit only two or three times. Far more often I have heard priests privately condemn other priests who were less-than-welcoming to homosexuals. The primary rule is compassion, and most priests and nuns believe that the law of compassion trumps any obligation to condemn homosexuality and other "sins of the flesh." Lay people are far more likely to be hardliners on "the rules." I think that a good many priests learn compassion from what they hear in confession and what they see when they visit hospitals or deal with bereavement - bishops don't have that opportunity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:30 PM

Me? liberal????


Oh..right.... guilty

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:21 PM

"The callous and conservative v the reasonable and progressive"

If ye didnae laugh ye wid greet!!

But oh so "liberal"!

Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM

Could todays USA    Rc's be more involved with a RC family tradition, rather than actively practicing the RC faith?

Could Joe O, in his mosest church position, today be more powerful than the RC Pope? Methinks it may be so?

Just wondering....seems like the pope has been downgraded to being no more than a historic "dust bunny" in the church that it is said that God (aks Christ) charged him with leading... through Peter.

Maybe it's why he is bullying the poor undefended gay fellows with no true power?