BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:54 PM

I thought about that but figured I'd lighten things up.

There's another one for yas. Yer welcome.

Say...

4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Disclosure of suspected sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.

Thereto...

1. Marriage of priests.

2. Marriage of nuns.

3. Ordainment of women.

4. Punishment of sexual abusers.
a. Punishment within the church.
b. Disclosure of suspected sexual abuse(rs) for investigation by secular authorities.

5. Birth control.

6. Abortion.

7.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:13 PM

Again, the Catholic Church hierarchy is analogous to a mafia run organization.
No wonder there is a connection historically.

Why aren't the Catholic laity leaving in droves? What keeps them hanging on?

Possible answer: an appeal to authoritarianism. Parental guidance with an iron hand or fist.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:23 PM

Does ""lighten things up" mean add humour, effervescence, take away weight, or remove ontent gnu, (as in "Light" meals or "Light" Ice cream or confectionaries", or "You light-up my life")?.

Just a humourous thought:)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:26 PM

Note that I tried to "lighten" content by removing the "c".

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:35 PM

""1. Marriage of priests.
2. Marriage of nuns.
3. Ordainment of women.
4. Punishment within the church of sexual abusers.
5. Birth control.
6. Abortion.
7. ""

Bs

1. Married Priests: YES! but irrelevant to abuse

2. Not sure about this. It would be necessary, not only to ask "Should they marry?", but also "Should they marry priests?".

3. Ordain women: Emphatically yes. They have much to offer and the presence of women would do much to assist in making very necessary changes in relation to contraception and abortion

4. Punishment of abusers: It should be made clear to all clergy that abusers will be handed over to the police for prosecution, and conviction will mean instant dismissal and excommunication.

Senior clergy should be told that any who attempt to cover up abuse will suffer the same action exactly.

5. and 6. Birth Control and Abortion: See above.

7. Education. adults and children should have full access to education about birth control, and women should have absolute right to choose whether to terminate up to the point of viability.

8. ALL the many and various churches, religions, or sects should be told that they must stick to saving souls and leave the bodies to secular law and justice. In other words "Render unto Caesar", failing which, they will lose charitable status and pay taxes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 04:38 PM

Ed... to shine light on things... the major focus of the sexual abuse scandals.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:22 PM

"1. Married Priests: YES! but irrelevant to abuse" Not so fast. The frustration of an unnatural celibacy can cause a warped idea of sex. (Original sin).

2. Nuns should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

3. The ordination of women in a paternalistic religion runs counter to its stated purpose. Catholicism is run by men.

4. The word "abortion" (a pejorative) should be changed to "terminate unwanted pregnancy".

8. I agree with this entirely. Get the church out of bedrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM

Gee, it looks like I stirred up a can of worms. I worked as a government investigator for thirty years - so I take crime seriously, but don't tend to get excited about it. I'm sorry if you view my dispassionate response as uncaring. I really am concerned about the sexual molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, and I want it to be resolved.

Still, my thirty years as an investigator compels me to work from the facts, and from a view of what is and what is not an effective response.

Much is made of the story of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. The evidence indicates that Murphy molested as many as 200 deaf students at the school from 1952 until he was removed from active ministry in 1974 (Murphy died in 1998). There's no question about this - this is a horrific crime. It appears the crime wasn't prosecuted, but it doesn't appear that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did anything to interfere with criminal prosecution. The flap about the Murphy case, was that the Cardinal Ratzinger failed to laicize Murphy. Murphy was not allowed to function as a priest, but many forces would not be satisfied until Murphy would no longer be a priest. Laicisation, which is a theological process usually based on elements that made the ordination invalid from the time it took place, is commonly known as "defrocking"; although it seems to me that removal of the function of priesthood would be a more apt thing to label "defrocking." When you're removed from your job as a baker, you're no longer a baker - but you still have the degree you earned at culinary school. So, since the guy wasn't functioning as a priest for the last 20 years of his life, it seems to me that he was functionally defrocked. I can't understand why he wasn't prosecuted in criminal court, however. Still, the criminal conduct ended in 1977.

The bishops of the United States put their most recent and most stringent measures against child molestation into effect in 2002, but they began taking measures in the mid-1960s. Yeah, there still are dioceses that are reluctant to release personnel files. As an investigator, I fought companies and government agencies about the release of records for thirty years. Companies have reasons to protect their records, and investigators have reasons to demand them. That's just the way it works. If an organization refuses an investigator, that's one thing. If that organization releases a court order for release of records, that's another. And yeah, you could pick on the Vatican's diplomatic immunity as a cover for releasing records - but the originals of most of those records are stored in the country of origin and available there if requested by court order. As an investigator, I did my best to obtain records from the originator, not the recipient.

There's no question that government officials and church officials in Ireland were in collusion in the industrial schools and in the Magdelene Laundries, and both sides are trying to protect their own asses and blame the other side. Once again, though, remember that the laundries and schools were closed by the 1990s, thus ending the abuse that took place there.

The child molestation crisis in the U.S. was mostly sorted out in 2002-2003. It is moving toward conclusion in Ireland, and I think the rest of Europe is a year or two behind. I'm sure that child molestation took place in the Catholic Church in Africa, Asia, and South America - but I don't know much about the state of things in those continents.

As a security specialist, I can tell you that the measures taken by the U.S. bishops are quite good - and Ireland and Continental Europe appear to be adopting similar measures. ALL employees and volunteers are screened and trained; and those working directly with children go through stricter training and screening, including fingerprints and criminal records checks.

If you look at the statistics, you will find a dramatic drop in the molestation of children by priests since about 2000. Offenses are now quite rare, and no bishop in his right mind would allow such offenses to continue or to go unprosecuted - the penalty is now too severe. What is happening now, worldwide, is the process of assessing blame and distributing compensation. It's a complicated process, and it's being carried out mostly by lawyers, not bishops. It's messy, and it's not good for public relations, but it's a process that must be done.

I understand the outrage. I guess I'm past the outraged stage because I knew about much of this in the 1970s, and I have been working toward the elimination of child molestation since then.

When there are facts available, I will seek verification - that's my nature as an investigator. I may question information that seems overblown, but I have never been one to deny verified information. I do try to put things into context and proportion and I realize that can be annoying to those who are in full-blown outrage - but it is only through facts and understanding that we can resolve problems such as this. I fully acknowledge that the child molestation scandal and subsequent coverup in the Catholic Church was widespread, and it was truly an abomination.

There are those of you who think I'm unqualified to comment on Catholic affairs outside of Wisconsin and California, but I assure you that I have worked hard to have a global perspective. I have close friends who have worked as priests and nuns in all the continents except Antarctica, and many were born in the countries where they worked. I'm an investigator with a theology degree who has worked and taught in the Catholic Church, and I've traveled extensively and can communicate in several languages. So, yeah, I think I'm quite well qualified to give objective information about happenings in the Catholic Church - and I try very hard to be objective and factual. And yes, I think that people who haven't set foot in a Catholic church for twenty years, are a bit less able to comment knowledgeably about the current state of affairs.

Oh, and let me assure you that as a rule, I don't like bishops and I don't trust them - with a few exceptions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 05:41 PM

Hmmmm... okay... I suppose there is at least one rule to a Bs session. The resulting discussions are not supposed to start until the Bs session is completed, at least to a reasonable degree. It is always open to perusal and tweaking but it has to be at least given a chance to be considered carefully first. Once a consensus is had about moving to the discussion phase... we go for the debates and analyses and such.

If you put the cart before the horse, the cart cannot be steered. It goes hither and yon and... well, things can get fucked up pretty quick like.

Hahahhaa... I just had a thought. If the lads in Rome blowin smoke as I type didn't follow a reasonable progression of BS and careful analyses and consideration as they do, they would end up with the cart before the horse as well. I hope I do not offend... just strikes me funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:23 PM

Here you go, gnu, a light one:

""When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.""
Emo Philips quote

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:29 PM

And, yet another:

"A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." Emo Philips quote

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 06:30 PM

For the record I do not call for priests to be laicized and especially not excommunicated. I don't think excommunication is valid in the first place, or what is baptims. Also, it is used as a threat over peoples' heads. So if they are Catholic that is what they/we are and we will have to adjust. I think laicized is the same thing. Also, for those who might be reasonably safe if they were in chains and locked to a pillar perhaps, we are going to need all hands on deck in case of natural disaster, or more likely, war. Some will have to be taken out of mothballs. There will be mass casualties.

What I call for is for children and vulnerable adults to be absolutely safe from them, whether that means jail, electronic devices
, essentially imprisonment in isolated monastaries etc. Also I am for brain operatios in the violent cases...voluntary taking chemicals to reduce urges are too fallible.

I am sympathatic to the people who are the abusers. What a wretched life they must live to not be able to control this..no one would wish it on them. But they have to be stopped either medically or electronically or by banishment. After that, I do not care if they are excommunicated or laicized. I think they should not be.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:00 PM

For once, I agree with mg. Priests who molest should not be punished by the Catholic Church. They should not be laicized or "defrocked" - the Catholic Church should have to live with the shame of having a priest who is a child molester.
The offender should be arrested, tried, and sent to prison. And yes, they should be suspended from ministry while awaiting trial and forever after conviction.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:11 PM

I am not sure why the Catholic church should be worried about the shame of having a priest, or thousands, who are child molesters. They made them and made their parents who made them. It is systemic. And probably for that reason they don't seem particularly ashamed..sure good at hiding it if they are..or it just melts into their general shame about sex between consenting adults..some of them cant tell the difference..all equally bad. If you hit someone on the arm long enough and hard enough, their arm is going to be deformed. Same same.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu - PM
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:16 AM

Oh... first thought. Start your brainstorming posts with "Brainstorm" (Bs for short) and keep them separate from other posts. It'll save us all time.


ARE YOU FUCKING LISTENING????????????????????????

CAN WE CETRALIZE THE DISCUSSION? CAN WE HAVE SOME DECORUM?

JESUS HIMSELF WOYULDN'T PUT UP WITH THAT SHIT!

GOOGLE BRAINSTORMING DEFINITION FER FUCK SAKE! Or just get some manners and READ THE DAMN THREAD!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:14 PM

Hmmmm... where did that post go? Did I dream that?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:21 PM

"The offender should be arrested, tried, and sent to prison."

As I said to Songwronger on another thread, if that's the way it's gonna be, why have a trial? Not all accusations are true. A certain teachers' association with which I am intimately familiar will defend any teacher for anything, period. No teachers' association of which I am aware will fund an appeal. One is innocent until otherwise proven. I think British law is the best that's ever been written. Except of course the American Constitution which is presently being redrafted.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:30 PM

You mean that American constitution that permits any Tom, Dick or Harry to carry lethal weapons around in his pocket?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:35 PM

Since NObody really addressed the OP but only addressed themselves...

Did I get your attention? Can we simply get back to the task at hand? Can you all take your minds off yourselves and help me do something I feel is important to me and to a lot of other people in this world?

In the OP, I asked a question. Some 140 or so posts later, I stated I had gleaned my answer. Nobody asked me what it was... no problem for me.

Then I asked for youse to join me in answering another question (as I alluded to in the OP). VERY few posts into that, it was ignored and I am not pleased... as you can see.

Oh, fuck it. I dunno why I bother. I vacate the floor. The discussion is yours. If a suitable chairman is acceptable to all I may consider rejoining the Bs as a participant in subsequent discussions. For now, I just can't deal with the childlike crap. I wished for a proper discussion... apparently, one can only have such in Rome.

Now... yees all think about THAT before you shit on the Catholic Church again.

>;-)

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:50 PM

Well it's like this you see. I do vaguely recall the OP, but I'm not going to keep going back to it because if I have to go to the start of a thread of any length, then want to respond, the whole bloody thing takes so long to load up that I give up the will to live. So I just click on that little d. In terms of thread drift, the inordinately long loading time of threads on this site have a lot to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 10:40 PM

Sweet JAYSUS! Who gives a shit about the OP, Steve? NOBODY. I just said that fer fuck sake! I had moved on to the second screwing over of the Op-er and I am the OPer whose OP was ignored in Spades... big tine... buried under piles of shite until NOBODY could see it... not even me. Keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 12:47 AM

I don't mean to change the subject, but are you the folk song collector Jim Carroll? If so, I have a question about a song.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 12:51 AM

BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 01:17 AM

Hi, gnu -

The short answer is that the bigger and older an organization is, the slower it moves. I suppose you could say that there's an advantage in that the Catholic Church doesn't get lost in shallow fads....

Actually, there can be advantages to a strong reliance on tradition. It can help us to appreciate the wisdom of the past, and not get hung up on the ephemeral.

The trick, however, is not to let the past rule without question. Many of our best teachers from the past, are our mistakes. No need to repeat them. I love my Catholic religion and its traditions. I find the structure and doctrine and rules necessary to carry on those traditions, but I can't imagine why a person would follow rules that just aren't right. And standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 02:34 AM

'standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter'.
.,,.
When did this 'always' begin, Joe; and this 'standard' become standard? Did the 'rule ... not apply', then to the Holy Office in C16 Spain? Or were they doing no 'wrong' in condemning 'hertics' to the auto-da-fe even tho many of these might have pleaded their 'conscience'? Did the judges consult their consciences? To what effect?

Just asking.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 02:49 AM

Well, Mike, the primacy of conscience was covered quite extensively by Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s. It was in the Baltimore Catechism in the 1950s, and that was based on the Catechism of Trent from the 1570s.

Mind you, this is for assessing moral culpability. If a person does something in good conscience, then he is not morally culpable from a theological standpoint. And yes, I suppose that some of the judges of the Holy Inquisition, did what they did in good conscience - even though they were wrong from an objective standpoint. And no, the judges of the Spanish Inquisition of the 1490s did not respect the primacy of conscience, and certainly wouldn't give a damn if Cervantes and others believed that what they were doing was right. The inquisitors were far more interested in political expediency.

And no, I won't defend the Inquisition. Many people who faced the Inquisition, were later named saints.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 03:26 AM

Guest Susan
"but are you the folk song collector Jim Carroll?"
Guilty as charged - ask away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 04:35 AM

Joe:
"Lawrence Murphy"
That was the most appalling piece of dodging responsibility I have ever read and it sums up all the double-think that has gone on throughout this affair.
Murphy was allowed to continue his crimes long after he was found out; it really doesn't matter that he eventually stopped preaching, He was allowed to remain a priest to the end of his life.
He died a priest, he was buried as a priest in a priests plot, - and, by your own rule book 'went to heaven as a priest'. So far as your church is concerned his crimes were acceptable enough for him to remain a priest - all the rest of your justification of the church's behaviour is no more than double-talk.
He expressed not an ounce of contrition right up to his death.
One of the most disgustingly distressing scenes in 'Mea Maxima Culpa' was the visit to Murphy's house by some of his victims, filmed by them.
With some difficulty, after being berated by his housekeeper they eventually managed to persuade him to the door - he drove them off telling them to leave him alone, he was an old man - no contrition, no apology.... nothing.
I wonder whether your stance would remain the same if it was you or yours on the receiving end of such despicable treatment; somehow I doubt it.
It is watching scenes like this and the Brendan Smyth documentary, 'Betrayal of Trust' (freely available for viewing on U-tube along with much more) that I deeply regret that I don't believe in Hell or eternal damnation – these animals (sorry for the insult animals!) died unpunished and their accomplices still refuse to acknowledge their part in serious criminal activities .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODvv6tQ3naQ   
http://banishedbabies-ireland.blogspot.ie/2012/03/documentary-betrayal-of-trust-brendan.html
What comes over in all of these is the cold indifference of the church authorities and the smug attitude that "God, history and the State is on our side".
Your benign defence of the Church by simply ignoring and refusing even to discuss this matter in all its aspects and by your persistence in reducing it to "a few bad apples" will guarantee that it will run longer than 'Les Mis' or 'The Mousetrap'.
Last year in Ireland a an abuse victim who entered a church to protest the visit of a bishop who was involved in child abuse, was booed and driven out - abuse deniers still lurk in this country.   
Contrary to your claims, it is far from having been dealt with with in Ireland and it never will be until every implication of the fact that the most powerful church in the world colluded in the long term and widespread rape of helpless and vulnerable children, has been recognised and dealt with in its entirity - I suspect that this is also the case in the US and in the other numerous countries where similar behaviour too place.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/priest-sex-scandal-shocks-brazil/2005/11/28/1133026405263.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-if-clerical-abuse-was-a-car-crash-wed-still-be-looking-for-the-victims-612209-Oct2012/
So far we know only of the events that occurred over the last few decades, and we have not the slightest idea whether it will ever happen again.
Yours getting sadder and sadder with each posting
Jim Carroll

PS Would be grateful if someone would be kind enough to explain how to do the blue clickies sometime -

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 04:37 AM

Believe me, Jim, Lawrence Murphy most probably went to hell as a priest. He molested 200 deaf children. But "defrocking" him wasn't necessary. He should have been prosecuted, tried, and sent to prison if found guilty. I am sure a trial would have found this man guilty, and I can't understand why there was no trial. This matter was in the press in the 1970s, well within the statute of limitations.

I don't excuse or deny his horrible conduct in any way, but I don't think the issue was whether he was "returned to the lay state" or not. If he's laicized, he's allowed to get married. If not, then he's supposed to remain celibate (which, for this guy, is an obscene irony).

But to make an issue out of Ratzinger's refusal to laicize Murphy, is not understanding the process. It's like saying a plumber is no longer a plumber, because he has committed a crime. The appropriate punishment was to prosecute him as a criminal, and fire his ass as a priest. And yes, he was fired. But why wasn't he prosecuted?

St. John's School for the Deaf was an esteemed institution, and students came from all over the United States. The school was located in the City of St. Francis, Wisconsin, a suburb on the outskirts of Milwaukee which has a population of 9,365. Within the city limits were a Catholic church and school, two Catholic seminaries (one now closed), two Catholic high schools (one for boys, one for girls - both closed now, I think), and the motherhouse of an order of Catholic nuns. I suppose that, with a population like that, the St. Francis Police Department might be reluctant to arrest a priest. They should have arrested him, though. Most likely, these serial molestations were the most serious crime that ever took place in the City of St. Francis.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:07 AM

And still you are reducing this whole affair to the behaviour of individuals Joe.
Your church was and still is implicated in serious crimes against children - does that not upset you enough to even acknowledge and perhaps discuss it some time
"But why wasn't he prosecuted?"
You damn well know why he wasn't prosecuted - for centuries the church has held entire countries and their governments by the balls; thanks to all this, we're beginning to see light at the end of that particular long, dark tunnel - I just hope we come out at the other side in my lifetime - if I thought so I'd put the champagne in the fridge today (I'm lying - I hate champagne)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM

Jim, I agree with you completely. There's no question that my church "was and still is implicated in serious crimes against children," no question at all. And I find that appalling.

So, where's our disagreement? You know that I respect your opinion more than that of just about any other Mudcatter. If I had known about this at the time I lived in St. Francis, I would have stood before the City Council and demanded that they order their police department to arrest this horrible person. But I didn't know at the time. The School for the Deaf seemed strange because I never saw anyone outside there, but that's all I knew at the time. And hey, I was 14 years old when I lived next door to that school.

Fr. Murphy was buried in a Catholic funeral, and a bishop I knew well (and still admire more than any other bishop) presided at the funeral in 1998. This bishop was a very honest man, and I'm sure he would have spoken of Fr. Murphy's crimes during the funeral. I wish I knew what he said. Yeah, I know that many people might say the man should have been denied a Catholic funeral, but the Catholic practice is to let God (and the civil criminal justice system) do the condemnation. Still, I wonder why my friend, as a bishop, couldn't have faded into the background and let some other priest do the funeral. My friend was someone who always forgave people - and he got a lot of criticism for that.

Sister Helen Prejean ("Dead Man Walking") faced the same questions for ministering to inmates on death row in Louisiana.

-Joe-

Gnu, I know this will break your heart, but please remember that it is a Mudcat tradition that the thread originator does not have control of anything beyond his/her own posts. What other people post, is their business. The thread goes, where it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

Joe
Quickly - breakfast calls

Tell me again how these things have been long dealt with in the US
It appears that the church is still buying (at extremely high prices – though maybe not to the wealthiest church in the world) the silence of abuse victims
This from this morning's Irish Times
Jim Carroll

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony and a former priest have agreed to pay a total of nearly $10 million to settle four child sex abuse cases brought against them, lawyers for the victims said yesterday.
Mahony, who retired in 2011 as head of the largest US archdiocese and is now in Rome taking part in choosing a new pope, was accused of helping a confessed pedophile priest evade law enforcement by sending him out of state to a church-run treatment center, then placing the priest back in the Los Angeles ministry. As part of the agreement approved by a Los Angeles judge earlier this month, none of the parties admitted wrongdoing, according to a plaintiff's attorney in the case. (Reuters)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 06:52 AM

Along the same lines as Jim, I was reading this article alongside the latest posts in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:05 AM

It is extremely difficult to find out exactly how many abusers and victims there have been, - part of the conspiracy of silence' no doubt,
This article – (over 2 years out of date – the situation has moved on since then) puts some of it into context, though nowhere has there been any indication of those who have been bought off, and we will never have the remotest idea of how many never reported it, but it will be certainly a far greater proportion than those women who were too ashamed (or too frightened of the maulings they will most certainly get from our legal systems) to report 'ordinary rape' (isn't that an appalling phrase.?)
"I'm sure he would have spoken of Fr. Murphy's crimes during the funeral."
He would have been the first one to have done so - can you think of one other occasion this this has happened, or is he a single lone voice crying in the wilderness?
Jim Carroll

UP TO 350 IRISH PRIESTS WERE LIKELY ACCUSED CHILD ABUSERS
New report shows it was far more than just a small element
By
JAMES O'SHEA,
Irish Central Staff Writer
One of the arguments made frequently in Ireland is that it is only a tiny minority of priests who were abusers. Yet the latest investigation, released yesterday, into six dioceses seems to indicate the opposite.
The report was compiled by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church.
The figures, shown below, were on the RTE television website soon after the investigation made its findings public seem to indicate otherwise.
All in all a total of 85 priests across six dioceses were accused of child sexual abuse. If you extrapolate that number across the 20 other dioceses you end up with a number close to 350 if you include the fact that Dublin and three other archdioceses are still to be counted and will have far more accused as a result of larger numbers of priests.

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

Sorry, missed a bit of the article:
Of course the overwhelming majority of the cases were never pursued because of the unholy alliance between the church and the government and the police to cover it all up for decades
If you think things are getting any better think again perhaps.
Last month Father Patrick McGarvey (43) was elevated to the position of parish priest of Fanad, County Donegal, by Bishop Philip Boyce of the Raphoe diocese, the man whose diocese was one of the worst offenders when it came to clerical abuse.
According to the Belfast Telegraph, in August 2004 McGarvey was caught by undercover police at Foyleside shopping centre in Derry, watching men in the public restrooms. The police caught the priest while carrying out an investigation after members of the public had complained.
Is that the kind of man you want in charge of a parish? Would you let your kid near such a priest?
Will the church ever learn?

Here's a breakdown of the figures:
Raphoe (Donegal)
.52 allegations reported to gardaí against 14 priests
. Eight out of 14 priests out of ministry, six retired
. Four convicted of an offence against a child
. Significant errors of judgement made by successive bishops
. Too much emphasis on accused priests, not victims
. More attention should have been given to preventative actions

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Up-to-350-Irish-priests-were-likely-accused-child-abusers-134769948.html#ixzz2NPtsd52V
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:13 AM

""But to make an issue out of Ratzinger's refusal to laicize Murphy, is not understanding the process. It's like saying a plumber is no longer a plumber, because he has committed a crime.""

That does not make any sense.

Most governing bodies having certification powers over professions, for example doctors, lawyers and even plumbers can remove it. So, a certified plumber can cease being a certified plumber. Let's not confuse this with removing the educational qualifications for a profession (for example, taking a PHD away from a doctor), that does not make sense.

The RC church has the sole power to name a RC priest a priest, and authorizing these people to practice under this title. So, logically the RC church has it has within it's power to withdraw the professional status (within the bounds of this planet), or, if it does not oficially have it now, it has the power (on Earth) to change it's own rules to make it so - if it had the will to do so. (However, I suspect the pope has such power now, if one wished to exercise it). They can leave it to the Lord (and, whomever) to deal with the situation beyond this planet, and beyond this life.

Where would society be if police officers remained police officers after consistantly breaking the law? Generally, they are removed from the profession, and cease to be police officers. Often where this has not happened in western society (for example, in LA), poeple have rioted in the streets to have it rectified.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:30 AM

Jim's link to JAMES O'SHEA ARTICLE

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Up-to-350-Irish-priests-were-likely-accused-child-abusers-134769948.html#ixzz2NPtsd52V

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:39 AM

Thanks Bonnie
How's Packie by the way
Best
Jim

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

I reckon I too will start blowing smoke through the chimney.

Black when my posts to this thread disappear mysteriously.

White when one is still there the next time I log on...

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:08 AM

""Believe me, Jim, Lawrence Murphy most probably went to hell as a priest. He molested 200 deaf children. But "defrocking" him wasn't necessary. He should have been prosecuted, tried, and sent to prison if found guilty.""

I rather think that defockng and excommunication are not only necessary but obligatory Joe.

The church covered these mens' misdeeds to protect the reputation of the "Catholic Church".

How much better it would have been, to protect that reputation by not only handing over the abusers to well deserved secular legal punishment, but also by repudiating them and all their actions by publicly severing their ties with the Church, and depriving them (in the eyes of the faithful at least) of any chance of heaven.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:41 AM

Although I am not religious, I do see that the ideology of certain theological precepts
run counter to what the hierarchy of that theology profess. For example, I am a devoted American and subscribe to the Constitution, generally, which like all documents has its flaws. However, I don't approve of where the elected representatives of this country are taking us; away from American values of democracy and under the guise of "freedom",
distorting these values.

This is analogous to those who in certain theologies subscribe to their ideals without going along with the hierarchical program. I see this in Jewish, Christian, Catholic and Islamic people. It's true of many countries of the world when the people don't agree with their erstwhile leaders.

Bottom line: Talk is cheap. Action is what counts. For example, I admire the Catholic Worker for its social action with Dorothy Day and Ammon Hennesey. I admire the "boycott, divestment and sanction" movement of Israel which is supported by many Jews. I admire "liberation theology" and understand its role in South and Central America.

I can see that you don't have to swallow the whole enchilada.

Personally, I hope a time will come when people don't need religion but can make a choice to believe as long as they don't enforce it on others or harm others in the process.
I hope for the bricks of the Wall of Separation of state and religion to remain in place despite the fundamentalist religions that are trying to tear it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:19 PM

It is not for us or any member of the somewhat pompous church to try to make it so people can't get to heaven. I am not sure that is what excommunication does exactly. Who knows what sort of mental illness they have...the notion that a person could condemn someone to hell (or maybe you just meant non-heaven, which is what you actually said and is a different matter) is horrifying to me. If someone on earth can do that, what is the point of judgement day? What is the point of teaching us about a merciful GOd when any nutcase religious person can now condemn someone to hell or purgatory or wherever.

What I want is for them to be out of reach of children. That now means prison. I think before all the coverups it could have meant essentially imprisonment in a Catholic monastary/jail but probably too much water under the bridge.

I think of course their ability to practice as priests should be removed, but not their status as priests. They could be defunct priests or whatever, but the day will come when priests will be either so scarce or so needed in a massive emergency that they will be needed..in which case severe precautions should be taken and probably only volunteers should go to them. I would go to one.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 07:43 PM

"And standard Catholic teaching tells people that a rule does not apply when it leads people to do wrong. As always, conscience is the final arbiter."

That' what I was taught. Too bad some posters haven't a clue that IS what is taught.

And too bad so many do not understand that even when it defies a "ruling", that conscience STILL applies. It overrules all.

Unlike the idiots that show up at my door early on Saturday, first good weather and ask for $.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 05:45 AM

I asked Joe above to define 'always' as used again in gnu's post --

"As always, conscience is the final arbiter"

but was not entirely persuaded by his reply.

Was it so at the height of the activities of the Holy Office, aka The Inquisition? If so, many would question some of the 'conscientious' decisions reached, and ask why the victims' doubtless sincere pleas of having followed their 'consciences' in what were then deemed heresies did not prevail.

But if this 'always' hadn't started then [which, despite Joe's adducement of Aquinas, the above phenomena might appear to suggest], what are we to extrapolate from 'always'? Or, if it had, then what effect or significance can we attribute to the actual perpetual operation of the 'conscience'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

.. or, to put it a bit differently, to some of us outside the One Holy And Apostolic Church, "conscience" might just appear synonymous with "cop-out".

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 10:33 AM

Suppose you're a Catholic doctor, who has the training and skills to perform a safe and medically-qualified abortion. Now suppose the life of your pregnant Catholic wife is seriously endangered and she will die if this pregnancy is not terminated. You know this to be a medical fact, beyond doubt. The baby is one you both want.

You commune with your conscience, your wife communes with hers, and you both come to the conclusion that you must perform the abortion to save your wife's life. It is really "trading" a life rather than taking one, because the wife will die if the baby is allowed to come to term. The alternative is that the baby dies and the wife lives. But that's assuming a normal healthy birth. There's no guarantee that the baby won't die too, at some stage, whereas the wife *will* without this intervention.

Using Joe's reasoning, in this case it would be OK for the doctor-husband to perform the termination, because they have sincerely consulted their consciences. Is this correct?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic religion response to 'today'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 11:56 AM

""If someone on earth can do that, what is the point of judgement day?""

I believe I am right in saying that only the Pope can excommunicate or decide what actions warrant excommunication, which is basically analogous with banishment or exile by kings , of transgressing subjects.

It is one of the areas of his infallibility, and it is an interesting fact that for a sigificant period in the twentieth century, reading Lady Chatterley's Lover could lead to excommunication.

I believe there are still books that catholics are debarred from reading.

My point wasn't about any of that. It was about the Church dissociating itself from the child abusers in the most serious and final manner possible within catholic doctrine and dogma, as a better protection of reputation than covering up abuse.

I don't particularly believe in Heaven, Hell, Limbo or Purgatory. I just think whitewashing an institution isn't the same as proving it is intrinsically white.

Don T.