This is the thread to discuss the scandal that is currently rocking the institution known as the Catholic Church. This is NOT the thread to discuss side issues that do not directly relate such as the Catholic Church in general, gay issues, general pedophilia, etc. There are other threads for those topics
As always, stay topical and keep the insults to a minimum. I dislike moving posts, but will if there is a disruption to the topic flow.
This thread is a little late in opening due to the new set of posts which is what I culled from the past month’s activity in Religion and Philosophy. Again, post there for the more ‘meta’ issues. I got the conversation as best I could and am really not interested in complaints about my moving job. Thanks in advance.
I’ll let mgleason add anything she feels necessary.
2. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:43:35 PM
16018. christipeters - 3/24/02 6:13:59 PM
To me, the problem with sexual abuse by priests is NOT that there are a "few bad apples" in the priesthood. Heck, I am very well aware that priest and ministers are human beings with human failings and sometimes someone will choose that profession who should not have done so.
Nope, to me it is totally about how the problem is handled by the church. If priests (or ministers) who are found to have committed acts of sexual abuse, whether with young children or with teens of either sex, are seriously disciplined, given counseling, and removed from any position where they have access to young people, this would be a total non-issue to me.
News of a clergyman found out in such behavior, but so disciplined, would provoke from me a sad hope the kids get counseling and recover and sigh of relief that the problem has been identified and handled, but no outrage.
The cover-up that it is being reported the Catholic church has engaged in, does provoke outrage in me. I hope someday the curch gets that.
16019. Cellar Door - 3/24/02 6:45:40 PM
Just when you think it can't get any worse -- IT DOES!
16048. Cellar Door - 3/26/02 5:31:33 PM
The Cover-Up Continues Unabated!
16049. wonkers2 -3/26/02 9:24:17 PM
Time Magazine Cover April 1: "Can the Catholic Church Save Itself?"
3. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:44:23 PM
16058. Cellar Door - 3/27/02 2:30:07 PM
Mo Dowd kicks clerical butt again!
16059. christipeters - 3/26/02 9:52:54 PM
From the article Cellar Door linked in #16058:
""People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," the pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said recently.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing, and the Vatican makes matters worse by seeming to conflate the two. Moreover, child sexual abuse is not an orientation — it's a behavior and a crime.
"If a 30-year-old man abuses a 7-year-old girl, you don't hit yourself on the head and say, `That dirty heterosexual!' " says Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk and priest who has written extensively about the sexuality of the clergy."
Why don't people understand this? It doesn't seem like that difficult a concept.
16062. wonkers2 - 3/27/02 9:22:42 PM
Polish Archbishop accused by priests of molesting young seminarians
16063. wonkers2 - 3/28/02 2:41:17 PM
Here's an insightful analysis of the church's sex abuse scandal For the Faithful, Trying to Reconcile Morality and Scandal
16064. wonkers2 -3/28/02 2:48:58 PM
For Priests Days of Hope in Time of Trouble
16109. wonkers2 - 4/2/02 5:51:14 PM
Some priests prefer little girls.
5. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:52:34 PM
16110. judithathome - 4/2/02 5:56:51 PM
After admitting to affairs with parishioners, Father Lenihan was removed from public ministry last fall and has agreed to leave the priesthood
Last fall??? Well, I guess 24 years later is better than nothing.
16111. wonkers2 - 4/2/02 5:59:37 PM
Quite a catharsis is going on.
16112. judithathome - 4/2/02 6:01:33 PM
Latest social trend, I guess.
16114. wonkers2 -4/4/02 2:27:34 AM
Secrets, Celibacy and the Church--Dealing with a complex culture of gay priests. This is quite a thoughtful op-ed.
16125. Cellar Door - 4/4/02 6:34:32 PM
My favorite Catholic sex scandal story to date.
16128. wonkers2 - 4/5/02 5:39:51 PM
Abuses by Clergy Become New Focus for Prosecutors
16129. ronski - 4/5/02 5:43:37 PM
It's about time.
16130. wonkers2 - 4/5/02 5:45:07 PM
We can agree on that.
6. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:54:24 PM
16136. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 1:41:23 AM
One Rapist Less!
16141. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 2:01:53 PM
Plenty of straight men succumb to the wiles of underage girls or lead them astray. Sometimes the are caught and punished. That's not the point. The Catholic church institutionally failed to deal with its problem, instead covering them up and allowing abusers to continue their predation as in the case of Father Pipala'a "Hole Club."
16142. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 2:07:52 PM
Cardinal Richard Mahony of Los Angeles Argued for Quietly "Slipping the Names to the Police."
16143. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:16:32 PM
Sorry jex, but as an ex-Catholic I can't help but enjoy the spectacle of chickens coming home to roost.
And as this story in today's NYT shows the matter is systemic to church.
16144. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:20:30 PM
And thanks for that link, wonkers. Mahoney is a serial LIAR whose story changes every day. The problem in L.A. is that the church owns so much land and is such a power in the city that the D.A.'s office has been loathe to toss the lying creep in the slammer for aideing and abetting sex crimes. That he may have a sex crime of his own to hide is. . . . .typical.
16145. wonkers2 - 4/6/02 3:29:31 PM
The church in Ireland has paid out $110 million in sex abuse settlements. The Church made the cover of this week's Business Week in a story about the serious and growing financial implications for the Church of sex abuse settlements.
8. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:55:56 PM
16146. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 3:57:12 PM
Will the last person to leave the Catholic Church please turn out the lights.
16147. Rama - 4/6/02 5:01:27 PM
Innumeracy strikes again.
16148. Cellar Door - 4/6/02 5:22:13 PM
But just because the Church is Going to Hell, that doesn't mean we all can't do a little Catholic Shopping!
16150. Cellar Door - 4/8/02 1:11:16 AM
Inside the Recovery Factories for Pedo Priests
16152. Cellar Door - 4/8/02 5:25:06 AM
The woman accusing Mahoney is doubtless a flake but this has nothing to do with the other outstanding charges against him. He will no doubt use it as a shield. I just hope no one will be suckered into believing that she's the heart of the story -- which she isn't. She's just a side-show. The story is the ver changing number of priests Mahjoney allowed to molest parishoners over a considerable span of time.
16154. Cellar Door -4/9/02 4:17:02 PM
Church enables pedo-priest's reign of terror.
9. thoughtful - 4/24/2002 1:56:01 PM
I'm just wondering, given the church's willingness to cover up these crimes, if there aren't other crimes they cover up too. Drunk driving? Money laundering? Why is it the focus is only on sexually abusing children? What about physical abuse? Has anyone not heard about nuns and their rulers?
10. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:56:53 PM
16154. Cellar Door - 4/9/02 4:17:02 PM
Church enables pedo-priest's reign of terror.
16155. wonkers2 - 4/9/02 6:18:29 PM
Cellar, you beat me to it. The NYT front page article tells an incredible story about how Boston priest, Father Frank Shanley, molested, at latest count, 26 boys in Boston, participated in the founding of NAMBLA, and was rewarded for his efforts with a plum assignment in California after he became too radioactive from molestation complaints in Boston.
"Mr. Ford and Paul Busa, 24, say that beginning at age l6 , they were pulled out of catechism classes by Father Shanley each week at St. John the Evaqngelist Church in Newton. Mr. Busa said in an interview on Friday that Father Shanley molested him in the bathroom, the rectory or the confessional, sometimes while he had Mr. Ford and another boy, Anthony Driscoll, waiting in another part of the church.
"He called it 'special duties,' Mr. Busa said. 'I remember him telling me that if I told anybody, nobody would believe me.'"
16156. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 1:02:34 PM
Cardinal Law should resign. If he doesn't he should be removed. And, if it can be done, he should be indicted and tried for obstruction of justice or whatever the appropriate charge is for his repeated cover-ups and reassignments of child abusing priests. His crimes are worse that those of the officials of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's law firm and investment bankers like Merrill Lynch (recently indicted for fraud? by the Attorney General of New York for causing analysts recommendations to be influenced by investment banking considerations). Cardinal Law clearly belongs right up there in the pantheon with Ken Lay, Skilling, Fastow and Andersen partners.
11. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:57:09 PM
16157. Indiana Jones - 4/10/02 4:31:48 PM
Isn't that an extremely apples and oranges comparison, wonkers? I don't think the Cardinal's actions meet the legal definition of "obstruction of justice". Did an actual legal investigation exist that the Cardinal impeded?
I guess what strikes me about your post is the transposition of the Enron folks as the ultimate evildoers, whereas I would have thought child abuse is as bad as it gets.
16158. Property of Jesus - 4/10/02 9:30:54 PM
Sources of Renewal
16159. betty - 4/10/02 9:40:13 PM
i think accessory and endangerment more aptly fit the good cardinal
16160. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 9:42:21 PM
I'm not sure. That's why I qualified my statement with "if it can be done." It may well be that he violated no law and/or that the statute of limitations has expired. Apparently in Massachusetts and many other states churches are not required to report claims of child abuse. And yes, I think what Cardinal Law did and what he failed to do is worse than what the folks at Enron, Enron's lawyers, Andersen and the investment banks did. That was my point. They are being criminally investigated and, in one case already, criminally indicted while Cardinal Law is still occupying the Cardinal's chair.
16161. wonkers2 - 4/10/02 9:44:07 PM
However, Cardinal Law has not been accused of child abuse, only of ignoring, enabling and covering it up.
12. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:57:46 PM
16163. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 12:28:41 AM
accessory/endangerment--works for me!
16173. Cellar Door - 4/11/02 4:23:07 PM
The latest from Boston.
16174. ashleysrancher - 4/11/02 5:40:57 PM
were you going to say something cellar?
16175. Cellar Door - 4/11/02 7:08:05 PM
Say what? That the Roman Catholic Church is a pedophile Cult run by a pack of lying scumbags, perchance?
16179. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 9:28:16 PM
Cardinal Law is dead meat!
60% of Massachusetts Catholics think he should resign.
Fat cat Catholic contributors to Catholic charities in Law's Diocese have voted with their wallets and sharply reduced contributions.
The editor of Catholic publication Crisis said on CNN that the Pope should fire Law, not allow him to resign in order for the Church to make a clear statement on the subject.
The Shanley case has put Law's situation over the top. Judy Woodruff quoted in big print the Law's 1997 congratulatory letter to Shanley on his retirement. She also pointed out that Law, knowing he was a pedophile, put Shanley in charge of of a hostel for wayward youth. This shows how dishonest Law himself has been on the handling of the child abuse scandal.
None of the three CNN commentators, from Time, Crisis and the Kennedy School believed, however, that Law's departure would allow the Church to put the matter behind it. The Time reporter pointed out that the problem is not confined to the U.S. but is worldwide. He opined that the celebacy policy is on the table whether the Pope likes it or not. (Obviously not.)
13. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:10 PM
16180. judithathome - 4/11/02 9:33:30 PM
Some guy tried to make a citizen's arrest of Law earlier today...he was escorted away from the scene but not arrested. He claimed to be a victim of one of the priests Law "protected".
16181. wonkers2 - 4/11/02 9:37:46 PM
That's a good one!
16182. judithathome - 4/11/02 9:45:48 PM
Yeah, if the church won't do it, let the victims loose on the guy!
16185. Cellar Door -4/12/02 12:51:02 AM
Because a "citizen's arrest" means public humilation. It's an important weapon against these scumbags.
16192. judithathome - 4/12/02 6:56:41 PM
Apparently, Cardinal Law isn't going to step down...he feels he is needed to lead the Church through this crisis. CNN
16193. Absensia - 4/12/02 7:14:04 PM
Laws no doubt vary from state to state, but generally a citizen's arrest is valid in cases of misdemeanors or felonies committed in their presence.
16194. wonkers2 -4/12/02 10:30:24 PM
Too bad Cardinal Law can't see himself as others see him. Anyway, I'm betting he won't last another six months. All he needs is a discreet delay for a face saver. Then he's history.
16198. wonkers2 -4/13/02 2:51:43 PM
Cardinal Law Rejects Calls to Resign in Sex Abuse Scandal
16200. wonkers2 - 4/13/02 2:56:16 PM
Abuse by Clergy Is Not Just a Catholic Problem--The Infamous Patrick Thomas Jr., former Lutheran Pastor
14. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:31 PM
16201. wonkers2 - 4/13/02 3:02:42 PM
Renegade View on Child Sex Causes a Storm--In 1990 the Dutch parliament made sex for people between the ages of 12 and 16 legal as long as there was mutual consent; the law excludes adult family members and authority figures like teachers and members of the clergy.
16203. Cellar Door - 4/13/02 8:08:40 PM
Check out the documents link in this "Boston Globe" piece about Shanley
I do believe I met Father Shanley in Palm Springs back in 1990.
But he wasn't wearing a cassock at the time.
16204. wonkers2 - 4/14/02 2:29:36 AM
HaHaHa!
16205. ronski - 4/14/02 3:12:19 AM
wonkers,
Still, the gap between the ELCA's handling of transgressing pastors, which it usually dismisses, and the Catholic Church's handling of transgressing priests, which it, sad to say, has often merely moved to another parish, is significant.
I am ELCA, and perhaps biased, but I do think we have done a better job at this than the Catholic hierarchy.
My suspicion is that the Catholic leadership values obedience and authority too highly. To admit any wrongdoing, any mistakes in judgment, frightens the Catholic hierarchy into thinking the faithful will lose faith in the infallible judgment of the church. The hierarchy is wrong in this, of course. Catholics would honor the leadership more if it could admit its errors more frequently. Certainly, American Catholics would.
16206. wonkers2 -4/14/02 3:26:26 AM
I agree completely. Hierarchical organizations have a hard time correcting their mistakes. And the more hierarchical the harder it is. Especially when the head man is infallible. The auto companies didn't invent recall campaigns. They were jammed down their throats.
15. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:58:46 PM
16208. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 6:03:15 AM
Mo Dowd Kicks Clerical Butt Again.
Go, Mo, Go!
16209. wonkers2 -4/14/02 1:32:24 PM
Maureen will burn in hell for that op-ed!
16210. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 3:20:05 PM
If so she'll have Patrick Gale to keep her company.
16211. wonkers2 - 4/14/02 3:55:56 PM
Criminal Prosecution of Cardinal Law Would be Difficult but not Out of the Question
16212. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 4:24:00 PM
The Tip of the Icberg
16213. Cellar Door - 4/14/02 6:00:18 PM
This just in from Milwaukee.
16214. judithathome -4/14/02 6:04:29 PM
Fourteen years ago, he established a program that has been lauded as an example of how dioceses should reach out to victims and swiftly deal with perpetrators of sexual abuse.
Maybe he did this to make up for the fact he was setting loose priests who were abusers on unsuspecting congregations where he reassigned them...after all, it seems the least he could do, offer help to the victims after the fact. Jeez, these stories are sickening.
16. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:59:18 PM
16215. Absensia - 4/14/02 6:13:41 PM
Sadly, but not surprising, the Pope has washed his hands of the matter (what historical biblical figure does this sound like?) and is leaving the resolution to the American clergy, while expressing support for the American clergy. (CNN, WashPost, and NYT)...and Mo Dowd.
16218. Property of Jesus - 4/15/02 2:12:04 AM
The truth about the troubles
16219. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 2:19:41 AM
Freepers on the Catholic Church?
ROTFALMAO!!!!!
16220. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 2:25:54 AM
Here's an especially choice bit from Donahue:
"I was in a Catholic college and you should see the anti-Catholicism that existed there at the highest ranks, including the nuns who ran the place and who didn't want anybody with a collar, namely a monsignor, any priest, to get the job."
LOL!
"Damned Dykes -- who put THEM in charge? Could it be. . . . .Satan ?"
17. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 1:59:53 PM
16223. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 3:55:44 AM
"The truth about the troubles" is only the partial truth. Jenkins may be correct about the incidence of clinical pedophiles not being higher among priests than elsewhere. But the problem of child abuse isn't confined to clinical pedophiles. The church has failed to deal with priests priests who technically may not be pedophiles but who have used their position of trust to abuse teenagers and seminarians. Clearly, when this group is included the number goes well beyond the two percent Jenkins figure cited by Donohue. The church hierarchy has failed to make it clear to priests that altar boys are off limits whatever their age is. Gays should not be excluded from the priesthood, teaching, the military or any other profession. But they should be expected to obey the law and behave in accordance with their position of trust. Those who don't should be dealt with severely. For various reasons this hasn't happened in a significant number of cases.
Just yesterday I read some comments by Donohue, who considers himself a Catholic but was divorced and remarried without as he put it "begging and paying for an anullment" and so is not in good standing. He advocates reform including making celibacy optional and allowing priests to marry and allowing women to be ordained as priests. He had a lot to say about the need for reform in the church.
16225. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 4:07:16 AM
Anyway, what is critical is what the church is going to do to rectify its abysmal failure to deal honestly and effectively with child abuse by priests, not whether the incidence among them is higher, lower, or about the same as in other religions and professions.
18. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:00:38 PM
16226. Absensia - 4/15/02 4:15:36 AM
Since the Pope has washed his hands of the entire matter, it's not going to be the hierarchy that deals with it...just the American Catholics...so we have to rely on Archbishops and a few Cardinals around the country to figure out what is to be done. And it seems that each area has it's own power, with no universal requirements.
16227. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 4:29:53 AM
Well, the head of the Bishops conference or whatever they call it seems to have his head screwed on right. And he and others are working on it in preparation for the next meeting of the Bishops.
16228. Absensia - 4/15/02 4:41:50 AM
Yes, but exactly how much authority do they have over Cardinals and other Bishops....I do hope they speak out and at least apply pressure for significant changes, resignations, record keeping, and specific methods of how the Church will deal with known child abuse, what safeguards they will take against it, and how they will deal with later charges of early abuses.
16229. wonkers2 - 4/15/02 5:00:40 AM
I'm optimistic that it will eventually worked out satisfactorily and that the church will survive. Despite my criticism in this thread, I hope the issue is resolved without crippling the church. I have tried to keep the issue alive because I sensed from the beginning that it was more than a blip on the horizon. Anything that makes the fron page of the NYT nearly every day for a couple of months is worth paying attention to.
16230. Absensia - 4/15/02 5:21:16 AM
Oh, I am sure the Church will survive...it's just a matter of how and will it lose such standing that people leave the church, others no longer join it, and the number of vocations goes down.
19. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:00:57 PM
16232. Property of Jesus - 4/15/02 12:35:29 PM
I'm all for the church selling much of its real estate that they inherited from hard-working people. Lawless, the bishop of Boston, lives in a tony mansion on a 62 acres estate in the Bay area. Put it back on the tax rolls.
16234. Rama - 4/15/02 3:20:03 PM
I'm all for the church selling much of its real estate that they inherited from hard-working people.
Yes, attitudes like this are what is really behind a lot of the excitement over this "scandal".
16236. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 4:07:26 PM
How Father Shanley Spent His Summer Vacation.
16240. Cellar Door -4/15/02 4:41:22 PM
Way back when priests couldmarry. But that would mean their money and property would go to their families and heirs, not the church.
Therefore, purelyout of greed, the Church decided that priests could no marry. They claimed that celibacy placed them in a special higher plane closer to "God" (that famous invisible person who lives in the sky, doncha know.) But you cannot squelch the human sexual drive.
You can only pervert it.
But thanks to the success of the Gay Liberation movement, men who once would have become priests in order to squelch their sexuality are living useful out lives.
So where does that leave the church? With the dregs. REAL perverts who not only find the place a shelter but an opportunity .
It's all about power. Priests have power over ordinary mortals. The church has power over the society.
20. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:14 PM
16241. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 4:42:59 PM
As I'm sure I've said before, if a thief broke into the rectory and stole a chalice they would call the police.
If Father Flotski is caught fucking an altar boy in the rectory, they call their lawyers.
16243. Rama - 4/15/02 5:21:11 PM
Way back when priests couldmarry. But that would mean their money and property would go to their families and heirs, not the church.
Therefore, purelyout of greed, the Church decided that priests could no marry.
This is not true. It makes a nice story, but well documented history tells a different one.
hey claimed that celibacy placed them in a special higher plane closer to "God" (that famous invisible person who lives in the sky, doncha know.)
Yes, it is clear how unbiased your view of this organization is.
But you cannot squelch the human sexual drive. You can only pervert it.
While that may be your personal experience, it is not the experience of most of humanity.
It's all about power.
For you, I am sure that is true.
16245. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 5:45:42 PM
Well-documented history will bear me out,"Rama."
There was a "Salon" story about this just last month. Plus there's John Boswell's book on Same-Sex Marriage in the early days of the Church.
21. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:28 PM
16249. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 6:36:29 PM
"The sex drive developed for reproductive purposes. Many human beings have no trouble making the conscious decision to control their own reproduction, despite the "dictates" of nature. Why not accept that they can also control their need for sexual intercourse? Or that as some have a desire toward the same sex, some don't have any desire at all?"
Because controlling a "need for sexual intercourse" and controlling a "desire for the same sex" are not the same thing.
I have seen far too much evidence of the lie of celibacy in all manner of religious practices to believe in it for one further nanosecond.
If I haven't mentioned that scene in The Red Shoes before, let me do it now.
The Ballet impressario Lermontov (Anton Walbrook) insists that his ballerinas have no romantic lives whatsoever. When his prima ballerina (Ludmilla Tcherina) announces that she's getting married he immediately begins to denounce her as an inferior dancer. This greatly annoys his second in command, Sasha (Leonide Massine) who has just remarked that the joy of her impending marriage has brought a new liveliness to her performances. Lermontov insists that a great dancer must put aside all "worldly" things.
"That's all very well and fine, Boris, but you can't change human nature," Sasha says.
"I can do better that that," Lermontov replies, "I can ignore it !"
And so he does. To his ruin and that of the ballerina on whom he had placed all his hopes and dreams(Moira Shearer)
I cannot pick a better image to evoke the hubris of the Church -- or any other religion that by squelching sexuality only serves to pervert it.
And ruin countless lives in the process.
16250. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 7:18:17 PM
The lure of denial.
22. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:01:44 PM
16251. PelleNilsson - 4/15/02 7:23:26 PM
It is a fact that the introduction of celibacy as a requirement on priests (about a thousand years after the founding of the church) can best be described as a political act aimed at ensuring the power of the central authority. It was not so much a question of property as a reaction against priests turning parishes and - far more seriously - bishoprics into hereditary fiefs. That it was dressed up in religious terms is in the nature of things.
It didn't quite solve the problem, though, because priests tried to push preferment for their nephews and other relatives.
Priests having mistresses was "a crime" not generally prosecuted with much vigour. The important thing was that they didn't produce any legitimate heirs.
16252. Cellar Door - 4/15/02 7:27:55 PM
THIS JUST IN! Look's like the fecal matter is about to hit the ol' Vatican fan.
16253. zojak quafeth - 4/15/02 7:34:10 PM
I wonder what the comparisons on abuse are with other religions/denominations where celibacy is required.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church for example, priests can marry, but cannot rise above the rank of priest if they do so. So priests, archbishops, metropolitans and the Patriarchs are supposedly celibate.
16254. zojak quafeth - 4/15/02 7:36:27 PM
I'd guess though that bishops etc., both in the Catholic and Orthodox Church have less per capita cases of abuse simply because there is less access/more oversight of schedule.
A priest can go out and plat basketball with little Johnny and join him in the shower later. A bishop probably can't since his staff would have to be along (his OTHER staff that is).
23. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:02:07 PM
16298. Absensia - 4/15/02 11:27:20 PM
Well, I saw today (CNN) that the pope has reversed himself, and, instead of leaving all this in the hands of the American bishops, he is calling all US Bishops to Rome...apparently next week. This will be, I hope, a good thing.
16299. Rama - 4/15/02 11:51:12 PM
Well, I saw today (CNN) that the pope has reversed himself, and, instead of leaving all this in the hands of the American bishops, he is calling all US Bishops to Rome...apparently next week. This will be, I hope, a good thing.
This doesn't look like a revarsal to me.
16347. Cellar Door - 4/16/02 7:18:01 PM
Sure we have an answer. Pedophilia may very well be Christianity's defining moment.
16475. wonkers2 - 4/18/02 2:16:54 PM
Pope summons Law to Vatican for secret ass chewing, but fearing domino effect among bishops who participated in Geoghan and Shanley cover-ups, tells Law to stick around and clean up his own mess. Cardinals McCormack, NH, Banks, WI, Daily, Brooklyn and Hughes, NO, implicated in Geoghan and Shanley cover-ups in Boston under Law
16481. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 3:04:19 PM
Meanwhile here in Sunny Cal.....
16487. wonkers2 -4/18/02 4:44:03 PM
Maybe we should have a ballot on which Cardinal is worse, Law or Mahony! Sounds like a dead heat.
24. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:02:42 PM
16488. KuligintheHooligan - 4/18/02 5:03:25 PM
re: article
It is really sad what people will do. It's another example of sinful human nature and how depraved we can get. People can do some pretty sick stuff and go on justifying it all the while. Human nature continues to prove itself unworthy of acolades.
16492. theDiva - 4/18/02 6:49:44 PM
Wonkers:
"Since 1993, the Archdiocese of Washington -- which covers the District and five Maryland counties -- has had a policy of requiring any credible allegation of sex abuse against a clergyman to be reported immediately to civil law enforcement authorities. Such allegations have resulted in the removal of six Washington area priests since 1995."
The entire article may be found here.
16503. wonkers2 - 4/18/02 8:33:36 PM
Diva, thanks. That was a good article. Stories of people who are doing the right thing apparently don't sell newspapers. Cardinal McCarrick deserves more publicity. I would also like to hear from some gay-oriented but celibate and hetero-oriented but celibate priests who I imagine comprise the vast majority of the priesthood. A lot of people like our friend Kuligan seem to be drawing the conclusion that gay priests or teachers are less trustworthy with children than are hetero-oriented priests or teachers. This is unfair to gay priests or teachers. Teachers in our district have been found to have molested both male and female students, in more or less equal numbers. At least that is my impression without seeing the statistics.
25. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:03:26 PM
16520. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 9:16:28 PM
If you're gay the church says "You're going to hell!"
If you're a pedophile priest the church says "You're going to San Bernadino."
16532. pelty - 4/18/02 10:38:07 PM
If you're gay the church says "You're going to hell!"
If you're a pedophile priest the church says "You're going to San Bernadino."
Tripe, plain and simple. I venture to say that the Church would say that a pedophilic priest should don warm weather gear.
16534. wonkers2 -4/18/02 10:53:25 PM
That's exactly what's been happening--ie sending the pedophiles to San Bernardino. As betty said one of Cellar's better lines.
16536. Rama - 4/18/02 10:59:24 PM
That's exactly what's been happening--ie sending the pedophiles to San Bernardino. As betty said one of Cellar's better lines.
This seems to me to be drawing an artificial and unwarranted distinction between hell and San Bernardino.
16537. concerned - 4/18/02 11:01:41 PM
I thought Pomona was hell.
26. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:03:53 PM
16538. pelty - 4/18/02 11:01:50 PM
Sure it has been happening, but CD makes it seem as if the Church does not believe that pedophilia is a sin worthy of hell. I find that difficult to believe. It is a catchy turn of phrase, but likely untrue. This is my point.
16544. Cellar Door - 4/18/02 11:26:46 PM
You may find it difficult to believe but the record speaks for itself. The church sent its pedo-priests to shrinks that claimed they could "cure" them, then sent the priests off to other parishes -- where they continued to molest children.
All the Church has ever cared about is the maintenance of its own image as Perfect and Inviolable.
16545. pelty -4/19/02 12:06:51 AM
"All the Church has ever cared about is the maintenance of its own image as Perfect and Inviolable."
Well, I can't totally disagree with that, unfortunately. Although again, your penchant for overstatement steals from the weight of your argument.
16546. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 1:14:28 AM
What overstatement? As I'm sure I've said before if they caught someone breaking into the rectory and stealing a chalice they would call the police. But if they find Father Flotski in the rectory fucking an altar boy, they call their lawyers.
27. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:12 PM
16548. pelty - 4/19/02 2:15:01 AM
...
CD
"What overstatement? As I'm sure I've said before if they caught someone breaking into the rectory and stealing a chalice they would call the police. But if they find Father Flotski in the rectory fucking an altar boy, they call their lawyers."
You will get no argument from me on this. I find the behavior of those involved deeply troubling, as I am sure you do too. My only point is that it is not fair to simply state that the Church does not believe pedophilia to be a sin worthy of hell. If you cornered the a number of priests on this topic, I would guess (and certainly hope) that they would view the actions of their brethren in the worst possible light. It is quite disturbing, though, that Rome has been so slow to action on this. In my opinion, those involved here in the US should be booted from their positions immediately. The RCC (and the Church universal, to a certain extent) is losing the trust of the people in a day and age where they can ill afford to lose any more than they have already lost
16556. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 5:41:06 AM
Here's an important interview with someone that I recall was being dissed by CalGal a few weeks back.
16557. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 3:11:02 PM
The story behind the story: How Do You Report the Scandal when the Archbishop is lying to your face?
28. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:31 PM
16564. wonkers2 - 4/19/02 3:32:22 PM
On the other hand, Joaquin Navarro-Vals, a papal spokesman, has said homosexuals "just cannot be ordained" demonstrating that as usual the Vatican has a clear grasp of the situation. Moreover, it's reassuring that Vatican progressive, Cardinal Ratzinger was recently named worldwide czar of sexual abuse. His first act was to force the resignation of a bishop in Berlin accused of sexually abusing a female Mainz University math professor, Anne Baumer-Schleinkofer, while performing an exorcism. Professor B-S said she sought to consult the church in 1999 over "visions" that came "directly from God." Hmh. Ratfinger
16572. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 5:24:18 PM
Phoney Baloney Mahoney treats reporters like trained seals.
16573. Cellar Door - 4/19/02 6:05:24 PM
A Problem of Credibility.
16605. wonkers2 - 4/20/02 11:16:24 PM
Speedy Jiminez, Colombian priest, leaves a 20 year trail of child abuse in three countries.
16606. wonkers2 - 4/20/02 11:23:17 PM
Speedy Diaz, not Jiminez.
29. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:04:48 PM
16629. Cellar Door - 4/21/02 5:08:43 PM
A letter in today's "Los Angeles Times":
Twenty-two years ago I left the priesthood in order to get married. In all this time I have been proud of my service as a priest and enjoyed sharing with friends and co-workers about what it was like to be a priest in the difficult yet rewarding life of working in parish ministry.
But for the first time in my life I am embarrassed to tell people that I was a priest. I am angry and feel betrayed by the cardinals and bishops who have allowed the good name and work of priests to be smeared by protecting bad ones. It is as if they believed that the worst priest was more important than the best layman.
And that, I think, is the heart of the problem. They believe that the shepherds of the flock are more important than the sheep. Look at Cardinal Bernard Law, who recently went to Rome to receive advice and consultation about whether he should resign as cardinal of Boston ("Cardinal Is Backed by Vatican," April 17). The opinion of the Vatican is more important to him than the opinion of the people in his diocese.
I will always love the church for the good it brings people, but I can no longer respect these leaders.
Dennis Heney
Huntington Beach
16649. Property of Jesus - 4/22/02 1:21:06 PM
SPEAKING TRUTH TO PC POWER
Edward Cardinal Egan's stand-in at St. Patrick's Cathedral pointedly blamed the priest sex abuse scandal yesterday on homosexuality, a "sex-saturated" society and a constant assault on celibacy by liberals.
16650. bubbaette - 4/22/02 1:27:48 PM
The classic "look what you made me do" defense.
30. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:05:09 PM
16654. magoseph - 4/22/02 1:53:31 PM
If religious fanaticism was ever established as a causative factor in the lack of the ability to reason, it certainly was expressed today by the absurdities voiced by Cardinal Egan.
16655. bubbaette - 4/22/02 2:00:47 PM
Yeah, just when you think that they've hit rock bottom in their rationalizing the problem, someone like Egan picks up a shovel and starts digging himself in deeper.
16656. betty - 4/22/02 2:06:54 PM
but it's lefties who don't want personal accountability! The Church and the Right don't blame other people for their problems, you two must have misunderstood.
16657. mgleason - 4/22/02 2:23:45 PM
If religious fanaticism was ever established as a causative factor in the lack of the ability to reason, it certainly was expressed today by the absurdities voiced by Cardinal Egan.
You couldn't be more mistaken. There is nothing the matter with Cardinal Egan's reasoning ability; he's making a calculated pitch to what he considers the bedrock of the Church - those who trace back every current evil to the Second Vatican Council. The Princes of the Church have no truck with religious fanaticism - that's for sheep, not shepherds.
31. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:05:44 PM
16695. wonkers2 - 4/23/02 1:07:10 PM
Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh battled for years to remove an abusive priest and ultimately persuaded the Vatican's highest court. here
16696. betty - 4/23/02 1:18:37 PM
It's sad to think that I almost wrote this Ra! Ra! Ra! post for Bishop Wuerl...but then I realized, all he was doing was doing his job. Nobody congratulates me for doing a great job when I answer the phone at work...It makes me realize just how bad the situation is when I'm excited to hear of a Bishop doing what he's supposed to do.
16700. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 3:24:04 PM
Lying Monsignor backtracks in record time -- under 12 hours!
16710. PelleNilsson - 4/23/02 5:48:52 PM
I see that the debate within the church now centers on celibacy and the ordination of gays. I think that completely misses the point. The real question is why the church has tacitly accepted and covered up child abuse.
16711. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 5:51:25 PM
That point is easily met - because certain segments of Catholic church leadership is archaic, secretive, ignorant of the deviance, and backward in management, to the point (in some cases) of criminal culpability.
32. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:06:01 PM
16712. zojak quafeth - 4/23/02 5:54:19 PM
Pelle-
It's window dressing. Abuse/inappropriate behavior is not limited to people who are [alegedly] celibate, gay, married, single people.
There are stereotypes that can be attacked easily to show that a church is concerned, but if they really cared they would have aggressivley investigated, reported, and assisted in prosecution to the fullest extent of the law
16713. mgleason -4/23/02 6:06:39 PM
Pelle,
If the Church can frame the debate around those issues, it wins. The thinking is that if the faithful who think that Vatican II was satanically inspired are energized to think that this is one of a series of baseless attacks on the faith, everything will be peachy-keen. Sure, some liberals (read godless Communists) will leave, but those troublemakers don't go to church, and it's much easier to ignore them when they're on the outside looking in.
If the Church admits the cover-ups, the 'winds of change' brought about by Vatican II will be dwarfed by a tsunami that will strip the hierarchy to its collective shorts. Why do you think Cardinal Law won't resign? He can't; if Law goes, Mahoney goes. If Mahoney goes, Egan goes, and so on, all the way up the line.
The numbers of good and loyal men of the cloth vastly outnumber the predator priests. But that's not the point; the point is that the hierarchy responded in a negligent and even criminal fashion to their depradations. When it came to protecting their flock, the wolves among them were given a free pass so as not to bring scandal upon themselves. Their concern was never for the Church, which is made up of the people - it was all for themselves and their careers.
16714. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:08:18 PM
Exactly.
33. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:07:37 PM
16715. ronski - 4/23/02 6:11:41 PM
I think they may get by sacrificing Law, alone.
But few in the U.S. are buying the attempts to blame the mess on gays.
16716. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:12:00 PM
The latest from the L.A.Times Pay very close attention to the last few paragraphs of this story. I think they isolate the heart of the problem. Because if the Church insists "Once a priest always a priest," there's no way of getting rid of pedophile priests!
16718. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:17:34 PM
Once a priest, always a priest, but that's true of priests who get married, for example. Ordination can't be reversed, but you need permission to function as a priest, and it's not difficult to revoke that.
16719. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:22:34 PM
It isn't? Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
We're back to Square One, folks.
34. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:07:56 PM
16720. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:23:05 PM
Interesting segment on NPR yesterday pointed out that allegations of abuse are handled pretty much the same way in both Protestant and Catholic churches.
Sound clip:
April 22, 2002: Protestants Struggle with Their Own Sex Scandals
They also point out that the sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church gets more publicity because it involves so many boys----notice how there's hardly any mention of the girls that have been abused---- and also because the rigid nature of the Church hierarchy provides such damning proof of the irresponsibility of Church leaders.
The specific Protestant pastor discussed in the segment is certainly a sexual predator, but I think it's less shocking to people when a 26yo seduces a 16yo or even several of them than when younger children are involved or when it can be combined with homosexual acts.
16721. ronski - 4/23/02 6:24:45 PM
An observation: Institutions like the Catholic and other churches, public and private schools, the Boy Scouts, and other large institutions are seemingly rife with child abuse allegations, but gay-run social service agencies that provide outreach to gay youth in places such as New York and L.A. are not. These agencies are of course dealing with much, much smaller populations, and so this may have to do in part with matters of scale, but I think it has more to do with an understanding that not all adults who want to work with children have the latter's interest at heart, and with a strong resolve not to tolerate even the hint of wrongdoing.
35. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:09:32 PM
16722. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:29:56 PM
ronksi
It may be in part definitional, part age-based.
For example, if I'm a 17 year old gay kid, and I go to a gay-run social service agency, the sexual issue is out and I'm not exactly a kid.
I'd be curious to know how many 11 year old gay kids go to a gay-run social service agency.
16723. zojak quafeth -4/23/02 6:29:59 PM
RCC in England and Wales ordered to appoint child protection specialists:
The Roman Catholic church was told yesterday that it must appoint child protection representatives in every parish in England and Wales to head off the wave of criticism that has broken over the church after a series of high-profile abuse cases involving clergy.
Even closed religious orders will be required to select protection coordinators as part of a 50-point strategy recommended by an independent committee headed by Lord Nolan, the man who laid down standards for parliament. Everyone working in the church - staff, volunteers and clergy - will be subject to police checks and all applicants will be asked to disclose details of any criminal offences against children and young people.
The 35-page report represents an all but unprecedented, wide-ranging secular assault on the practices of a church where bishops and clergy have traditionally had unquestioned authority.
Lord Nolan told a press conference in London: "The care of children is at the forefront of the teachings of Christ. We believe that the Catholic church in England and Wales should become an example of best practice in the prevention of child abuse and in responding to it.
36. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:10:00 PM
16724. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:31:21 PM
Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
That's the 64 thousand dollar question. Although, with the number of cases being brought and the deep coffers of the Church I imagine the price of the question has increased exponentially.
The only thing I can imagine is that once they'd covered it up the first time to avoid scandal they had to keep covering it up or face not only scandal for the abuse but also scandal for the coverup. The initial lies required more and more lies and I think it's exactly as Maria says: there were enough people in power who were only concerned with saving their own reputations and not at all concerned with protecting the flock that the guilty went not only unpunished but often rewarded.
What I cannot understand in any way, however, is why they would continue to place these men in positions where they had access to children. It's bad enough to cover it up, but to actually enable them is unbelievable.
16725. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:31:37 PM
Then why did Law keep moving these predators around?
Hubris. It's the same old dynamic that was at work between Henry II and Thomas Becket - the belief that clerics should not be subject to secular rules.
37. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:10:27 PM
16726. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:36:54 PM
For a literary answer (and a hell of a read), I recommend John Gregory Dunne's True Confession.
An unidentified murder victim - 'The Virgin Tramp' - is found in a vacant lot in the shadow of the L.A. Coliseum and precipitates a storm centre in the lives of scores of people. The Right Reverend Monsignor Desmond Spellacy is the chancellor of the archdiocese of L.A., a man clearly on the rise to even greater eminence in the church. His brother, Homicide Lieutenant Tom Spellacy is in charge of the murder investigation. Tom and Des inhabit the world of favours and fixes, power and promises, priests and pimps, cops and contractors, boxers and jockeys, lesbian fight promoters and lawyers who know only how to put the fix in.
True Confessions is a vital, vibrant novel about a crime that has no solutions, only victims, and about the complex relationship between brothers tainted by guilt and hostility, who ultimately find their salvation in each other.
16727. ronski - 4/23/02 6:38:35 PM
From my days when I was associated with such a group, I recall that 11 and 12 year olds were a rarity, but around 13 years and older they were pretty well represented. That's about the age gay kids start feeling different, start getting bullied in school, start getting thrown out of their homes for being gay, or run away.
16728. bubbaette - 4/23/02 6:40:41 PM
notice how there's hardly any mention of the girls that have been abused
I've noticed that too. I guess that Man-Girl pedophilia is to be expected -- only man-boy generates the lawsuits.
38. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:11:10 PM
16729. ronski - 4/23/02 6:42:10 PM
I think more of a problem than personal hubris is the fear of admitting anything that might undermine the authority of the church.
16730. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:43:35 PM
JC,
Ronski makes a good point. The common consensus seems to be that "children" don't have sexual identites, so an 11 or 12yo is at a disadvantage in this matter. If he isn't acknowledged capable of having a sexual identity it isn't likely that he will be able to articulate that he has an alternative sexual identity.
Did you read the article that Cllr linked in the other day? I think it was from Salon, but it's about the woman who's under fire for her book about the sexuality of children in America, age of consent laws, etc.
16731. mgleason - 4/23/02 6:46:16 PM
It's not personal hubris, Ronski, but institutional.
16732. Julius Caesar - 4/23/02 6:48:58 PM
Ms.
The age of consent is both mythical and critical. It is less important that it be 17 or 15 or whatever, and more important that whatever cut-off has been established, it be rigidly enforced. There is no area where the slippery slope could lead to more disastrous results.
As for the other point, I don't know the statistics on gay-run services (or the Boy Scouts, for that matter), but I do know that a lot of people run to the Church trying to cast out demons that plague them, and the cruel twist is that those demons then place them in the greatest proximity to children.
Worse, like bank robbers, many a molestor just goes where the money is.
39. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:11:39 PM
16733. Ms. No - 4/23/02 6:49:37 PM
Bubba,
At least the molesting priests aren't making the girls (gasp!) g-a-y.
That's what gets me really steamed. There's all this focus on homosexuality which has nothing at all to do with child molestation.
It's far more common for priests to break their vows of celibacy with their peers---other priests, nuns or adult parishoners. Non-celibate gay priests have sex with other men. Pedophiles have sex with children.
16734. Rivendell - 4/23/02 6:55:23 PM
Institutional hubris indeed.
Some of the quotes in this CNN article deepen already deep feelings of sadness.
Others come close to making me want to throw up.
16735. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 6:59:32 PM
But what you're talking about Ms. No, is the across-the-board failure of the Church to deal with the realities of human sexuality in all its forms.
"Sin" just doesn't cut it.
40. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:03 PM
16736. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:00:10 PM
Jules,
I only meant to point out that 11 and 12 year old kids aren't generally "out" to the point where they'd seek the services of a gay outreach center, so the age thing is kind of moot.
I agree with you, though, that people who prey on children tend to gravitate toward the professions and opportunities that allow them to indulge their proclivities. It's also true that the places where one goes for help attract those most in need of it and that can be a problem. I don't know if you've ever attended any "Anonymous" meetings, but it's the quickest place to meet drug addicts of all sorts and eventually to score. There's always at least one in every group who's going to fall off the wagon.
16737. bubbaette -4/23/02 7:02:55 PM
Ewww. As far as I'm concerned, these folks are just digging themselves in deeper.
16738. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 7:03:37 PM
"The important thing in seminary formation is to ask whether or not a candidate is capable of marriage and family," he said, "because an ordained priest is a married man. He's a committed man, the bride of Christ. The difficulty in formation ... is whether a man can see himself as married and bringing forth new life, which is what a priest is supposed to be."
So if you're priest you're a "Bride of Christ," yet you're supposed to be straight?
ROTFALMAO!
41. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:21 PM
16739. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:07:58 PM
Cellar,
I agree that the Church is in denial about the realities of human sexuality and that they refuse to deal with it, but I don't know that this is what prompted people to cover up child abuse unless you're making the argument that they covered it up like they cover up for non-celibate priests who have relations with other adults.
Even still, I don't think they've covered it up because they don't "get" sex, I think it's because they refuse to admit that the Church might make a mistake. Maintaining the Authority of the Church is to some people the most sacred, important duty they have. They have, sadly, lost sight of what their real duty is.
16740. mgleason - 4/23/02 7:08:09 PM
It is deeply saddening, Riv.
I'm interested in Cardinal George's comment about a priest being the 'bride of Christ.' Even ignoring the gender-bending implications, a priest used to be considered an alter Christus (other Christ) married to the Church. What's up with elbowing out nuns for bridal status?
16741. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:11:41 PM
Institutional hubris is not even enough of a description.
At the deeper heart of this is the panic - the mind numbing fear - that getting rid of any priest will make the current shortage unmanageable. There are over 6,000 fewer priests in the US today than in the 1960s. In a direct ratio there are more than 5,500 parishes without a resident pastor.
If the pastorless parish number grows much larger then the discontent of the parishoners will reach critical mass and, God forbid (pun intended) the case against women priests becomes much harder to defend.
These guys are crapping down both legs to prevent that situation.
42. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:35 PM
16742. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:13:31 PM
Maria,
That caught my eye too. I wonder if it wasn't just a thoughtless use of that prevalent metaphor in reference to sisters.
16743. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:16:38 PM
Riv,
If they did allow women to be ordained, and/or lifted the policy against married priests that would remove the barriers to re-joining with the Anglican Church.
16744. christipeters - 4/23/02 7:16:41 PM
"...if the Church insists "Once a priest always a priest," there's no way of getting rid of pedophile priests!"
Are there no positions for Priests within the Catholic Church which do not involve contact with children? Could the Catholic Church keep Priests who have been shown to be pedophiles, but keep them away from children?
16745. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:20:20 PM
Joan Vennochi is a bit more of a fire breather than I am about this subject. But her column in today's Boston Globe is, I'm sad to say, exactly how I read the quotes in that CNN article in the earlier link.
As a footnote, it is interesting to follow this story through the eyes of the Boston papers.
43. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:12:52 PM
16746. mgleason - 4/23/02 7:21:04 PM
If married priests can't be allowed to serve as priests, certainly pedophiles and ephebophiles shouldn't be allowed to serve. Forgiveness, yes; a nudge and a wink, no. These priests are criminals and don't need positions that bring them into contact with children to take advantage of their roles.
16747. Property of Jesus - 4/23/02 7:23:26 PM
YIKES!!!
Catholic Church said to be struggling to ensure that the priesthood is not "dominated by homosexual men."
16748. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:25:06 PM
Christi -
The sisters seem to find a way to shuttle off problem people to out of the way assignments. John Paul even mentions the need to work for redemption of souls.
Again though, in the case of priests, doing that would have taken them out of the role of pastor.
Up till now that seemed to be more of a problem than the safty of the helpless ones in their care.
16750. Ms. No - 4/23/02 7:32:00 PM
Riv,
I'm with you on that. I'm disgusted by Law's responses. I feel that he should resign and if he doesn't resign that he should be dismissed and that no matter what happens he should be held accountable in a criminal court for his actions.
At the same time, I don't want Law to be offered as a sacrificial lamb so that others in the Church can then deny their own responsibility. Law must go, but the Church must answer to the allegations as well and become more accountable.
16751. wonkers2 - 4/23/02 7:34:04 PM
He should resign and go to jail if there is a charge that fits.
44. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:09 PM
16754. Rivendell - 4/23/02 7:41:59 PM
Bernard Law was bishop of the small (population wise) diocese of my birth. I remember vividly the day he came to speak to my class in high school. He is one of the most gentle people you'd ever meet. In one or two of his quotes I can still hear the voice of that person who, if was not genuinely caring was a scarily effective actor. When Law celebrated his 50th anniversary as a priest he came back to my old home parish church because he was enamored of the restoration work done on the 150+ year old building.
It hurts to watch this happen to him.
But if his actions warrant prosecution for endangering minors then I hope he spends a sufficient time cooling his ass in a jail cell.
16757. PelleNilsson -4/23/02 7:55:12 PM
maria Message # 16713
That was the point I was trying to make, in shorthand. Thanks for spelling it out.
16769. Cellar Door - 4/23/02 9:35:56 PM
Signorile's Latest
16777. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:20:14 PM
Heard this reported on the radio news--
"It is a constant struggle to keep the church from being dominated by homosexual men".
Don't know who said it. Should I find out?
16778. uzmakk -4/23/02 10:20:58 PM
Clever politics?
16779. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:22:13 PM
Topic of story was the Pope-Cardinals meeting.
16780. uzmakk - 4/23/02 10:22:40 PM
Couldn't be true.
45. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:24 PM
16782. ronski - 4/23/02 10:25:18 PM
uz,
Bishop Wilton Gregory, in yet another attempt to blame the current problems on gays rather than admit to where they truly lie, which is among a hierarchy that refused to report sexual predators to civil authorities.
16783. Rama - 4/23/02 10:34:26 PM
This seems like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" principle carried to a new level. "Homosexual men who have sex with teenaged boys don't cause scandals, men who don't report those men to the police cause scandals"?
16784. ronski - 4/23/02 10:42:35 PM
Nonsense. The church hierarchy is clearing trying to shift blame from itself by scapegoating all homosexuals, including those in the priesthood who do not abuse their roles with children and those who are chaste.
How can pedophiles and ephebophiles be brought to justice if the hierarchy protects them?
And guns don't kill people.
16786. ronski - 4/23/02 10:57:09 PM
...clearly trying...
And I've yet to see anyone claim that priests, of whatever orientation, abusing young people is not outrageous in and of itself.
46. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:13:49 PM
16787. zojak quafeth - 4/23/02 10:57:09 PM
Rama -
As Ricky Ricardo would say lemme esplain sumthin to yoo.
1. NO one here disagrees that the individual priests who commited the acts were WRONG.
2. Other than you apparently, I don't believe that anyone else here thinks that the RCC handled issue 1. in the appropriate manner.
They should have reported and assisted in prosecuting.
You're guilty of at least 2 misconceptions/misrepresentations in your post.
1. You ignore issue 2 completely. Are youy by chance an archbishop?
2. You distort issue 1. to condemn all homosexuals whether they are pedophiles or not and try to foist the blame of issues 1 and 2 on homosexuals in general.
So, what about hetereosexual priests who abuse little girls? Should all us hetero men be tossed into a hold of a ship, taken out to sea and sunk in the marianas trench? That would solve the problem right?
16788. Rama - 4/23/02 11:07:11 PM
Nonsense. The church hierarchy is clearing trying to shift blame from itself by scapegoating all homosexuals, including those in the priesthood who do not abuse their roles with children and those who are chaste.
It seems the principle of "scapegoating all X" would apply as well to the "church hierarchy" as it does to "homosexuals".
How can pedophiles and ephebophiles be brought to justice if the hierarchy protects them?
How can it be justice, if they are not responsible for their own actions?
Just out of curiosity, why do we have the word ephebophiles, but we don't have a similar word to use when Protestant youth leader engages in inappropriate "counseling" with a member of the opposite sex?
And guns don't kill people.
True, it is the disruption of bodily functions resulting from the bullets passing through tissue that kills people.
47. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:14:39 PM
16790. Rama - 4/23/02 11:23:24 PM
1. NO one here disagrees that the individual priests who commited the acts were WRONG.
I am sure that everybody here believes that sex with children is wrong. I am fairly sure that everybody here thinks sex between authority figures and teenagers is wrong. I am pretty sure that there are people posting here who do not think that sex between adults and teenagers is wrong.
2. Other than you apparently, I don't believe that anyone else here thinks that the RCC handled issue 1. in the appropriate manner.
Nothing I have posted indicates that I believe the RCC has handled this issue well.
1. You ignore issue 2 completely. Are youy by chance an archbishop?
Sorry for not being politically correct. As you said, everybody is addressing issue number 2. To such a degree that any reference to issue 1 is treated as being mere excuse making for issue 2. Besides being somewhat illogical, it will make it very difficult to actually deal with issue 1.
2. You distort issue 1. to condemn all homosexuals whether they are pedophiles or not and try to foist the blame of issues 1 and 2 on homosexuals in general.
I haven't posted anything about "all homosexuals".
So, what about hetereosexual priests who abuse little girls? Should all us hetero men be tossed into a hold of a ship, taken out to sea and sunk in the marianas trench? That would solve the problem right?
Ricky, you been playing your bongos too loud. It has effected your reading ability. Who has been suggesting anybody should be thrown into the deep blue sea? Other than the "RCC hierarchy", of course.
all priests, all religious, and all lay Catholics, but no one is doing that.
48. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:15:15 PM
16793. ronski - 4/23/02 11:36:39 PM
It is hardly scapegoating to blame the hierarchy when we are talking about a hierarchical, authoritarian entity. The buck stops somewhere at the top, and it is the top leadership that has failed in its responsibilities. It would be scapegoating if someone were criticizing all priests, all religious, and all lay Catholics, but no one is doing that.
16795. ronski - 4/23/02 11:41:34 PM
And no one is saying that abusers should not be held responsible for their own actions.
16797. mgleason - 4/23/02 11:43:36 PM
Abuse is a crime; the cover-up of that crime is the meat and potatoes of the scandal.
16800. Rama - 4/23/02 11:54:47 PM
Abuse is a crime; the cover-up of that crime is the meat and potatoes of the scandal.
Is abuse not a scandal? Is a scandal worse than a crime?
16801. Rama - 4/24/02 12:06:35 AM
It appears to me that some priests (A) have been behaving badly with young people. It appears to me that some priests (B) have been behaving badly regarding the priests (A). There may be some intersection (C) between sets (A) and (B). Further it appears that most of the priests (A) are homosexual, as are some of set (B) who are not part of set (C). It also appears that most priests who are homosexual (D) are not part of set (A). Of course, they are all priests. But it seems to me that people are much more concerned about the set of priests (B) who are not in set (A) (who we can call set E) than they are about set (A). But if there were no set (A), there would be no basis for complaint against set (B) or set (E). Or perhaps there would be, but it would require a different basis.
49. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:15:36 PM
16812. Rama - 4/24/02 2:43:48 PM
Several posters have suggested that some of the priests who did not deal well with some of the other priests who had sex with children or teenagers should go to jail, if there is a crime that will fit the behavior. This brings up an intersting philisophical question that frequently has a religious vector: When should behavior that is wrong also be illegal?
16813. bubbaette - 4/24/02 2:47:52 PM
In some professions in some states there are mandatory reporting requirements if you are aware that child abuse is taking place. In those cases, for those professions, not acting on that knowlege is a violation of the law.
16814. Rama -4/24/02 2:54:27 PM
In some professions in some states there are mandatory reporting requirements if you are aware that child abuse is taking place. In those cases, for those professions, not acting on that knowlege is a violation of the law.
This is a good case in point. Child abuse is wrong and illegal. Not reporting child abuse is also wrong, but is only illegal in some cases. Theft is wrong is also wrong and illegal. But not reporting theft is almost never illegal.
50. rubberducky - 4/24/2002 2:17:14 PM
hmm. may have copied over a little too much. but, at any rate, let's keep the conversation going. i apologize to anyone who posted and it got lost in the deluge of copies!
(missing posts in this thread were due to me messing up the copy)
51. Raskolnikov - 4/24/2002 2:28:48 PM
A priest is taking confession, with a long line of sinners waiting to get into the confessional. But he really has to go to the bathroom. So he looks out of the booth to see if he can find a substitute. The only person he sees is the janitor, so he calls him over.
"I need you to cover confessions for me", he says. The janitor protests that he has no idea what to do. The priest tells him that it is easy, and gives him a cheat sheet that will tell him what penances to assign for the most common sins. The janitor agrees to cover for him, and the priest runs off to the bathroom. The janitor sits in the confessional booth. He hears a young woman's voice say:
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned. It has been one week since my last confession."
"umm, what are your sins, my child?"
"I have taken the Lord's name in vain three times"
The janitor looks at the cheat sheet. He finds it quickly. "That will be three 'Hail Marys'", he says.
"I was late for work, and I lied, saying that I had a flat tire."
The janitor scans his sheet, and finds "petty lying". "That will be two 'Hail Marys' and two 'Our Fathers', he says.
"I performed oral sex on my boyfriend".
The janitor scans the list. He can't find it, either under "oral sex", "sex, oral", or any other term. He gets nervous, and peeks out of the booth to see if the priest as returned yet. Instead, he only sees a passing altar boy.
"Hey, kid, what does the priest give for oral sex?"
The kid thinks for a minute. "A candy bar and a coke."
52. mgleason - 4/24/2002 2:46:43 PM
Nice job, RD. I'm putting together some links for the sidebar, such as Papal statements and a background of the Church/State tension which I believe to be directly related to the actions of the hierarchy.
It would be a grave mistake to discount the ingrained belief that the Church is above the law when evaluating the behavior of those engaged in covering up sexual abuse and misconduct on the part of the clergy. Being 'in the world, but not of it' speaks to much more than spirituality; it is also the battle-cry for those who believe that there is no limit to the Church's sphere of influence, one that admits to no secular constraints.
It will be interesting to see how the Church reacts, beset not only by the usual suspects, but also by the faithful, who are tired of having little or no say in the policies of what is, after all, their Church.
53. mgleason - 4/24/2002 2:57:19 PM
One of the fruits of the current close scrutiny of Church activity is a renewed interest in finances. Each archdiocese is its own fiefdom, with no reporting requirements to those who provide the money, obviously useful when paying off those pesky complainers.
I believe that this is one of many practices that will have to change, as Catholics are already proving adept at voting with their wallets, and this is the real cause of anxiety in the upper echelons.
54. Rama - 4/24/2002 3:29:15 PM
what is, after all, their Church.
What makes it their church? If you pay your fare and get on an airplane, is it your airplane?
55. robertjayb - 4/24/2002 3:32:14 PM
Thanks, y'all, for pulling this stuff together.
Initially it appears that the new sex abuse policy out of Rome will let prior offenders skate but call for one-strike and out for newbies.
Just so they call the cops.
Here is the latest from AP...
56. mgleason - 4/24/2002 3:55:34 PM
God has gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and has established them as the Church.
Vatican II: Constitution on the Church
Thanks, Robert. Here's a link to the Yahoo! coverage of the scandal, which includes links to many other stories and websites. I'll put it on the sidebar when I remember how to do it.
57. Rama - 4/24/2002 3:59:46 PM
God has gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and has established them as the Church.
That would indicate they belong to God's Church, rather than that the Church belongs to them.
58. zojak quafeth - 4/24/2002 4:01:35 PM
What makes it their church?
trying to get philosophical rama? are you skating on thin ice dancing with the devil or even perhaps counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
To answer your question tho, the bible. church is defined as a gathering. It literally is the group of people.
If you pay your fare and get on an airplane, is it your airplane?
Silly, glib example.
59. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:02:27 PM
No, that would indicate that they are the Church, which is a teaching of the Church.
60. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:07:37 PM
trying to get philosophical rama?
I am always philosophical.
are you skating on thin ice dancing with the devil or even perhaps counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
Nope. I am making a point regarding a logical error in analysing this situation.
To answer your question tho, the bible. church is defined as a gathering. It literally is the group of people.
That would be an answer to the question "What is a church?", not to the question "What makes it their church?".
Silly, glib example.
Silly, glib response. Going to a church, putting money in the plate, does not mean the church belongs to you any more than paying your fare and getting on a plane means the plane belongs to you. You no more have a right to say where the church should go than you do where the plane should go.
61. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:08:47 PM
Take it to the Religion thread, please.
62. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:10:44 PM
No, that would indicate that they are the Church, which is a teaching of the Church.
No, that would indicate that they are part of the Church, which is the actual teaching of the Church. Again, that shows that the Church is not theirs, it is God's (according to the teaching of the Church.)
63. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:12:53 PM
Take it to the Religion thread, please.
Take what to the religion thread? Any reference to the Catholic Church that is anything but hostile? Any opinion you don't agree with?
You were the one who brought up the theological statement.
64. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:16:32 PM
The header says this thread is about:"Discuss the current furor surrounding allegations of sexual misconduct and coverup in the RCC"
It looks to me like the furor is based on people who don't like the way the RCC is run, that have little or nothing to due with sexual misconduct or coverup, but rather with pre-existing hostility on other grounds, particularly the position of the RCC on homosexual behavior.
The fact that you are now talking about the finances of the RCC and about who owns the RCC seems to support my impression.
65. mayrose - 4/24/2002 4:21:51 PM
i couldn't write this in the catholic topic and i don't come around
often. how nice of you to call it misconduct. these priests that are
groping or fucking little kids should be given an orange jump suit
and the same for anyone that covers it up. to see dirty old men
covering for each other makes me want to vomit. who cares
what the church says about itself. mistakes have been made
does not cut it. sorry does not cut it.
66. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:25:41 PM
Take to religion what does not belong in this thread, which is dedicated to discussing the current crisis. I will not comment further on my statement, which is correct, your beliefs notwithstanding., and any other off-topic posts will be moved.
67. Rama - 4/24/2002 4:33:44 PM
Take to religion what does not belong in this thread, which is dedicated to discussing the current crisis.
Ok.
I don't think this is a crisis. It is a furor, but not a crisis. The RCC is a couple thousand years old, and the USA is merely a small part of its global operations. The people who are talking about leaving the RCC over this furor probably would be happier elsewhere anyway.
Most Catholics will treat this scandal the same way they treat their politicians "Those other politicians should be thrown out of office, but I'm keeping my senator/congressman/mayor".
68. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:40:50 PM
I don't know to whom you're directing your post, Mayrose, but I don't know of anyone who doesn't the crime of sexual abuse seriously. Those who protected the predators at the expense of their victims were wrong, and though I don't know whether they can be charged on a criminal basis, their conduct certainly ought to be investigated.
There are many, many more fine members of the clergy than there are those who abused their privileges and positions. I don't believe that the Church is corrupt at heart, but there are things that must change if she is to overcome the scandal that threatens to engulf her, one that has come about because those in a position of power forgot that their first responsibility is to their flock.
69. mgleason - 4/24/2002 4:51:09 PM
I don't know, Rama. The Church will survive; she always does, but at what cost? Is it worth fighting the battle against transparency and honest dealing, the same impulse that brought this situation to a boil?
Back in 1995, a young Canon lawyer named Doyle predicted this very outcome, and suggested pertinent reforms. For his trouble, he was shunted off the fast track and buried in a military chaplaincy, his warnings largely ignored. The strength of the Church lies not in ostrich-like behavior, but in being able to absorb and adapt, so that she can say 'as has always been taught,' and mean it. Catholics love and back their Church, but this is betrayal at the most basic level.
70. Rama - 4/24/2002 5:05:29 PM
The Church will survive; she always does, but at what cost?
Very little cost, I think. Some dollars, that would otherwise be spent on widows and windows, and some organizational changes, as has happened thousands of times before.
Is it worth fighting the battle against transparency and honest dealing, the same impulse that brought this situation to a boil?
I don't understand what that question is supposed to mean.
Back in 1995, a young Canon lawyer named Doyle predicted this very outcome, and suggested pertinent reforms. For his trouble, he was
shunted off the fast track and buried in a military chaplaincy, his warnings largely ignored.
It seems to me a Church that has a "fast track" and considers a military chaplaincy to be a burial is guaranteed to have a furor like this every few years. There is a strong disconnect between these ideas and a notion that the Church belongs to either God or to the parishoners.
71. mgleason - 4/24/2002 5:18:11 PM
I do not refer to monetary cost, though that is a consideration, but to the loss of trust on the part of the faithful, a much bigger concern. Fighting the battle for secrecy feeds into this problem, as many of the clergy and lay people of the Church have stated, over and over.
The 'fast track' refers to prospects for a career in the hierarchy; one doesn't get there from a military chaplaincy. There is absolutely no disconnect between acknowledging that there is such a career path and the teaching that the people of God are the Church, with Christ as the head, not the hierarchy, who are meant to serve the people. This they have manifestly failed to do.
72. Rama - 4/24/2002 5:27:42 PM
I do not refer to monetary cost, though that is a consideration, but to the loss of trust on the part of the faithful, a much bigger concern.
There have been huge losses of trust in the past (you may recall the recent Reformation). The Church seems all the better for it.
The 'fast track' refers to prospects for a career in the hierarchy; one
doesn't get there from a military chaplaincy. There is absolutely no disconnect between acknowledging that there is such a career path and
the teaching that the people of God are the Church, with Christ as the head, not the hierarchy, who are meant to serve the people.
It looks to me like they are meant to serve God and the Church, just as the people are. The fact that there is a "fast track for prospects in the hierarchy" indicates that they are meant serve themselves.
What corporation was it we were talking about?
75. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 7:45:17 PM
I haven't heard the reports from the Rome conference, but I just heard Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican named Flynn discussing the reports from the conference. Matthews and Flynn were very critical of an expression of concern by the Pope over the public "perception" that the Church or the Cardinals had not handled sex abuse by priests properly. They both agreed that the Pope and the Cardinals "still don't get it."
Meanwhile, a CNN poll said that 86% believe Cardinal Law should resign and only 14% that he should not.
76. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 7:52:14 PM
All three were critical of a statement by one of the Cardinals to the effect that the problem was less serious than pedophilia because the most of the molestees were not children but teenagers or words to that effect. Barnicle was insensed by a comment which he thought made light of cases of sexual abuse of teenage girls by priests or saying that abuse of teenage boys was no more serious than abuse of girls. [Not sure I got this straight.]
Matthews asked his guests to speculate on whether the failure of the Cardinals to deal with the situation might not relate to their own sexual problems.
All in all, tonight's Hardball was pretty rough on the Rome conference and its participants, including the Pope.
77. Cellar Door - 4/24/2002 9:57:10 PM
Meanwhile in Orange County. . .
78. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 10:55:47 PM
The judgment of the majority of the talking heads on television tonight, most of them Catholics, laymen and clergy, was that what came out of Rome was not clear enough, did not go far enough and that Cardinal Law and maybe others must go.
79. joezan - 4/24/2002 10:56:03 PM
Went to my nephew's confirmation last night - first time I've been in a Catholic church since the scandal broke.
I guess I probably expected things to be a little "off"...maybe people wouldn't be in such a celebratory mood, or something.
But that wasn't the case at all - in fact, it was probably the nicest confirmation I've ever attended.
...until the local Bishop spoke - the standard sermon about the new confirmantes' obligations to the church, the deeper meaning of confirmation, etc. But somehow, for some reason I'll never for the life of me figure out, this gabroni managed to make mention of the abuse scandal three times, during three different points of his 5-point sermon. Each time, it was about the suffering priests (and especially high-ranking priests such as Himself) have had to endure recently.
After the third time, my wife atarted giggling uncontrollably, and I actually had to cover her mouth to shut her up.
Screwed the whole thing up, is what he did. Now, the thing every one of those kids will remember most about their initiation into full membership in the Catholic Church, will be that it happened in the midst of the Pedophile Priests Scandal.
Amazing.
80. wonkers2 - 4/24/2002 11:02:39 PM
You're echoing what Mike Barnicle and others said tonight about the cardinals in Rome--They just don't get it yet.
But several expressed optimism about the upcoming conference of American bishops.
81. Cellar Door - 4/24/2002 11:33:44 PM
"Each time, it was about the suffering priests (and especially high-ranking priests such as Himself) have had to endure recently."
That's absolutely revolting. Nothing about the victims, of course.
And what an insult to that audience. I can't think of less appropriate occasion for a priest to discuss the scandal with parishoners. It's supposed to be about the kids being confirmed. But NO -- it's all about them !
82. concerned - 4/25/2002 12:13:32 AM
I've got one thing to say about this thread:
***yawn***
Wait. I've got another. Why doesn't the Catholic Church countenance married priests?
83. rubberducky - 4/25/2002 9:06:59 AM
bold, bold words....
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- U.S. Roman Catholic cardinals summoned here by Pope John Paul II condemned Wednesday the sexual abuse of minors by priests, but they stopped short of proposing a "zero tolerance" policy toward priest-molesters.
In a communique issued after the two-day meeting called to address the scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in America, the cardinals said they would instead recommend a national policy for the dismissal of a priest "who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors."
"There is a growing consensus that it is too great a risk to assign a priest who has abused a child to another ministry. That's clear," Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the news conference that ended the meeting.
84. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 12:46:32 PM
That's nice to know notorious, serial abusers will be dismissed. However, I'd have hoped the goal would be to dismiss them long before they'd get to the notorious, much less serial, level.
A number of bishops, McCarrick in DC and Gregory (quoted above) for example, already have established the precedent of listening to lay voices on certain issues to a greater extent than in some other diocese.
Even though the American cardinals are throwing up all kinds of other issues, concerns and explanations it seems fairly certain that, if for no other reason than self preservation, most if not all diocese will be giving greater voice to the laity when the issue is possible criminal and/or seriously immoral conduct on the part of any priest, sister, brother or deacon.
I suspect most rational bishops will also make certain the laity are more involved, again self preservation can be a key here, in any decision to pay money to settle a lawsuit. The days of using that money to silence the basis of a lawsuit will, hopefully, be at an end.
85. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 12:54:11 PM
An institution that measures its existence in thousands of years moves painfully slowly. Any cradle catholic is already familiar with the process. When change does occur it is through the establishment of tiny precedents that eventually allow those who fear change the most to say confidently, "That's how we've done it forever."
In the theatre classes we cover just such a cycle from when the church banned theatrical performances after the fall of Rome to when it became the very agent of bringing publicly supported theatre back into existence through it's religious dramas.
That process took a mere 800 years or so.
I hope giving the laity a greater voice doesn't take quite that long. Many good things could come from it. And it is what John 23rd had in mind when he pushed to have the doors and windows of the church opened.
86. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 1:14:41 PM
Looked but couldn't find it to post from the cover story in Time magazine, there was a chart that showed the median age of priests and nuns both were over 60 and that there were more priests over the age of 90 than under the age of 30! Won't have to worry about pedophilia among priests if there aren't any left.
87. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 1:29:24 PM
Thoughtful,
You point out another condition that will increase the level of lay participation. It is also going to keep open the discussion of women priests.
88. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 3:21:22 PM
Riv, maybe but the age of nuns didn't make it any more hopeful, assuming if nuns were able they'd become priests.
Re the glacial speed of change in the catholic church, the daily show did something on that the other night...mentioned how quick they were to apologize to galileo...only took about 400 years.
89. magoseph - 4/25/2002 4:00:25 PM
Right, thoughtful, Rivendell, the present tumult will certainly have a profound effect on the recruitement on candidates for the priesthood. Now a candidate is also presented with the real possibility of a lifetime career being destroyed by a false accusation. Maybe all this is the precursor for change in the church regarding women and celibacy.
90. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:00:57 PM
Thoughtful,
New sister recruitment is in even worse shape than enrollment in the seminaries. I have no studies to prove it, but some sisters have told me the powerless position of the sisterhood within the church heirarchy is a major obstacle when it comes to getting a new person interested in the life. I guess I'd like to think that would change if women were brought more fully into the real power structure through ordination.
I also know many moderate, faithful men and women who think JP's declaration that the subject of women priests is closed - period - was a wishful thinking. The subject is far from closed.
91. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:03:54 PM
Magoseph,
Michael Kinsley wrote an interesting column for this week's Time magazine related to your thought about career destruction. I haven't checked to see if it is online.
92. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:04:36 PM
The apology to Galileo still amuses me.
I mean... I like to tie up loose ends too, but...
93. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:13:15 PM
I can't find the Kinsley column on the Time website. It is also not yet posted on the other site we don't mention in here.
94. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 4:20:56 PM
My impression is that the consensus is that the Pope and the Cardinals bombed in Rome. Seems to me, as an outsider, the Church might want to consider a compulsory retirement age for Popes and Cardinals along with optional celibacy and women priests. A top drawer PR or damage control firm might also be helpful.
95. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:25:11 PM
I understand James Carville is available. He might need more to do now that wife Mary Matalin is angling for Hughes' old job.
96. magoseph - 4/25/2002 4:25:16 PM
Thanks, Rivendell. I'll check it at school tomorrow. My older sister was a nun for fifteen years. She left the order at the same time her future husband did the priesthood. It took three years for my sister to get permission to leave in good standing but only a year and a half for my brother-in-law. To this day, we don't know why the discrepancy. This happened in France, by the way.
97. Rama - 4/25/2002 4:25:17 PM
They should probably drop that whole religion thing, too. They are really good the social services busines, and that whole Jew/Moslem thing has given the whole religion business some really bad buzz.
98. glendajean - 4/25/2002 4:25:50 PM
Here's a headline story from Slate questioning the logic of "this is a homosexual, not a peodophile problem" school of argument.
99. mgleason - 4/25/2002 4:27:12 PM
Here's the Kinsley column, The Thin Line Between Love and Lust.
100. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:29:13 PM
I suppose if one hoped for the type of response we've become accustomed to in American politics then the papal/cardinal conclave was a bust.
Most veteran Vatican watchers said, before the meeting convened, that wouldn't happen.
Like I said, the noises I'm hearing about greater lay involvement are the most positive things I've heard. And before I really wasn't convinced we'd hear even that.
101. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 4:31:31 PM
Maria,
Thank you! I couldn't find it. I've been thinking a lot about what he says.
102. ronski - 4/25/2002 4:39:45 PM
glenda,
Thanks. The article offers good examples of the general intellectual dishonesty of attacks on gays.
Apart from the issue at hand and subject of this thread, that dishonesty, that inability to demonstrate that gay people as a group are in any way a harm to society (without resorting to illogic, distortion, and falsehoods), is why the gay "agenda" that the homophobes hate so much is slowly winning.
103. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 4:40:39 PM
glendajean, Good slate article. Thanks. Property of Jesus should read it.
104. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 4:41:46 PM
Actually not so slowly as you might think.
105. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 4:45:32 PM
Kinsley loses me with the last lines of his otherwise fine essay.
I have no sympathy for a Cardinal who so willingly sent known pedophile priests to other parishes after going theough the revolving door of "treatment."
106. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 5:03:07 PM
The US cardinals/bishops need every scrap of support they can find right now. This whole nonsense about preventing the priesthood from being dominated by homosexuals is, at bottom, an attempt to keep the Opus Dei(mons), and others of that ilk, on their side.
Besides, if a person remains as celebate as they say they will demand then orientation becomes irrelevant and/or difficult to detect in a halfway decent actor.
107. Rivendell - 4/25/2002 5:08:57 PM
Cellar,
Kinsley's point certainly is stretched to breaking when one thinks primarily in terms of Geoghan and Shanley.
But when it is applied to his earlier point about people with violent tendencies in the military and people who work with youth who are certainly not serial predators, but still cross a line, then it is easier to see.
In the case of Law, though, it is impossible for me to grant the point.
108. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 5:20:03 PM
I don't find Saletan's article very convincing. Ofcourse, this is the Mote and I will have to defend my position. Something which I do not have time to do right now. Maybe this weekend, maybe never.
109. ronski - 4/25/2002 5:22:33 PM
Please give it a try. We might all learn something.
110. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 5:36:01 PM
Down Among the Sheltering Palms.
111. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 5:37:35 PM
I think the church is fearful of a real doctrinal issue which is whether one's sexuality is by choice or by nature. The church likes to think it's by choice so that you can exercise discipline and not have sex or not have gay sex or not abuse children. If the church accepts that a person's sexuality is innate...that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
112. thoughtful - 4/25/2002 5:47:36 PM
My other question is, if the church was willing to cover up this crime...are there other crimes they have also covered up? Money laundering? Drunk driving? Non-sexual child abuse? Freedom from taxation and their separate doctrine and administration makes them a nation within a nation and may allow them the presumption that they answer to a higher authority (apologies to hebrew national) so need not respect the authority of national governments.
113. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 5:52:49 PM
Maybe never. It's probably indefensible.
114. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 5:58:07 PM
wonkers, you little snipe, bet you have your fingers crossed.
115. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 6:03:04 PM
No, my middle finger is extended. There appears to me to be, to use your word, an "infestation" braying asses in the mote of late.
116. wonkers2 - 4/25/2002 6:03:46 PM
infestation of braying asses
117. Rama - 4/25/2002 6:09:00 PM
116. wonkers2 - 4/25/02 11:03:46 PM
infestation of braying asses
Was that intended as a definition:
wonkers2 Noun(On-line English, 4/24/02, 11:03:46 PM, from Brit English wonkers)
1) infestation of braying assess 2) . . .
118. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 6:40:40 PM
Cross it, extend it, both conjure an amusing image.
119. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 6:46:42 PM
Actually wonkers, I should say,--
Cross it, extend it, either conjures an amusing image.
I don't want to give you anymore to snipe at than I have to.
120. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 6:47:46 PM
This just appeared in "Slate":
Subject: SALATAN WRITES FROM FAGGOT CENTRAL
From: THE EAGLEMAN
Date: Apr 25 2002 12:35 PM
Don't know how many bothered to read this scummy pervert's writing this AM as featured in the usual Leftist Slate Offerings.
It was supposedly there as an after breakfast mint for all to absorb.
Arrogant Salatan has spent far too much time on his knees.
HE, like most other deviates are desperately scrambling at this minute to
mitigate the involvement of faggots in the conflict taking place within the
Catholic Church.
Salatan, like the GLADD, NAMBLA members, are all rabidly seeking ways
in which to divorce themselves from this scandal, and at the same time, give
forth a positive image for faggots everywhere.....and one is to believe that
devout faggotism is a good thing.
121. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 6:48:01 PM
SCREW YOU, SALATAN, AND THE WHITE HORSE YOU CAME IN ON.
Faggots come in many stripes and colors. Faggots are INDOCTRINATED,
CONDITIONED, & RE-INFORCED into their filthy lifestyle.
THEY ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY, as they would have you believe.
Only with the inception of the whole scummy Clinton Reign of Terror, were faggots
given rise in their stature. It took a deviate and corrupt administration to accomplish
this.
There is hardly ten cents worth of difference between a regular maggot faggot and one that
preys upon young boys.....and with the Lezzies...the young and tender AND impressionable
young girls. Take a deeper look into the Girl Scouts....PLEASE!
The basic deviance is still there.
NOW, they would have America and the rest of the world believe that the Catholic Church is wholly responsible for THEIR concerted and filthy practices.
They have had quite a long time in which to inflitrate an otherwise caring, giving, merciful
Organization.
It was a gleeful party for all faggots involved. Free and continuous access to young boys forever.
122. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:00:25 PM
Cellar:
wonkers is so much more parsimonious, he does the same thing with a finger, but it is still the same thing.
123. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:10:16 PM
Did you read the story in my last link, uz?
124. marjoribanks - 4/25/2002 7:18:48 PM
It has long been clear to me that the Church has a fundamental and systemic problem with homsexuals in the priesthood, a problem compounded by the celibacy rule.
I remember, when forced to do one of those pre-Cana things before we were married, listening in utter shock to a priest who when describing his own vows said not "I've vowed to be celibate" but "I've vowed to abjure all sexual activity that is normally associated with marriage." This same priest recommended mutual masturbation as a way to keep our own requirement of abstaining from sex before marriage. He was an outright, unashamed, hypocrite.
Anyway, the problem is this. The Church, particularly recently, has gone out of its way to publicly denounce homosexuals and homosexual activity. Yet, the priesthood is full of homosexuals - in fact it has been virtually a traditional refuge for gays in many conservative Catholic communities I am familiar with.
Priests who know they're gay, and that must be upwards of a third in the priesthood (I'd argue upwards of 50% of the priests I've known -a number well into the hundreds) are forced to do one of two things. The first and more common response is to be a hypocrite, which is a terrible thing to witness in a person who wants to be a moral leader - witness the priest who conselled me in the pre-Cana thingy. The other, even worse, option is to live in perpetual self-loathing, fighting a battle against oneself. I find that the most virulent clerical rhetoricists against homosexuality have always been the ones to me who could also most easily be identified as most likely homosexual.
125. marjoribanks - 4/25/2002 7:19:15 PM
There is only one way forward - the Church must stop its nonsense about homosexuality and its sham of finding reason to demonize it in the Bible. It must also condemn criminal activity of any type, if it wishes it can continue to prohibit all sexual activity by priests but more vigilantly. The celibacy rule would be a good one to kill immediately but it ain't happening so at least the gay-bashing must cease if the entire institution wants to avoid looking ridiculous.
126. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:23:22 PM
Why in the hell is 50% of the Catholic priesthood
gay?
127. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:24:14 PM
I read your link Cellar. So?
128. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:25:43 PM
Given a universe of possible vocations why would a homosexual choose to be a Catholic priest?
129. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:27:02 PM
Gotta go. Wish I could stay.
130. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:44:01 PM
"I find that the most virulent clerical rhetoricists against homosexuality have always been the ones to me who could also most easily be identified as most likely homosexual."
Sing Out Louise!
"I read your link Cellar. So?"
I stayed at that hotel (the "Whispering Palms")on my vacations back in '92 and '93. I met both those guys. No idea that they were priests! (Mu less pedophile priests.)
It's a long and exceedingly baroque story that I expect to be relating in full quite soon.
131. uzmakk - 4/25/2002 7:51:44 PM
This is the story that you mentioned several days ago? It is so long since I read anything baroque.
132. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 7:57:15 PM
Yep, that's the story.
I am awaiting Shandling's reappeance (either in the flesh or on a slab) and then I'll be writing something for some publication or other in the "mainstream."
133. Cellar Door - 4/25/2002 8:47:09 PM
134. Jonesatlaw - 4/26/2002 1:11:00 AM
Back in the days, wiseguys burned Holy Cards in intiation and swore oaths to keep silent, went to confession, and prayed that they'd never be hit with a RICO action. Now the guys on the inside of the confessional are doing the same-Hey Fadda, wanna use my mouthpiece?,
135. Erinys - 4/26/2002 2:36:49 AM
I had an absolutely stunning post on the subject* eaten by a vociferous suck-egg Windoze OS, and I can't work up the energy to totally re-create it.
I'm stunned that so many people are shocked at the current scandal, was the gist.
I went on camping trip with a wannabe soon-to-be priest once and he made a big point of rejecting my body, and it made an impression....he had a lot to give up, a lot of power. The power to get people loans at the local bank, power to get people into a hospital just now, power to get flowers sent yesterday, whatever, didn't mean much to me but it did to him. Mmm. It pissed me off at the time, but I also remember scenes from childhood - those nuns were crap-ass awful and isn't it just a moment away from us having lawsuits about them?
*subjective, of course
136. Erinys - 4/26/2002 3:08:27 AM
Nuns battered my psyche; should I sue?
Oh, I've fallen in love with that bright idea.
If you were in my movie
You could be the priest
Long black frock
White collar at the neck
You could come to the confession
You could give a girl a thrill
You could save her from her passion
Keep her body in check
If you were in my movie
If you were in my movie
If you were in my movie
-Vega
137. Erinys - 4/26/2002 4:30:55 AM
Mother the doctor knows something is wrong
Cause my body has strange information
He's looked in my eyes and knows I'm not a child
But he doesn't dare ask the right question
Mother my friends are no longer my friends
And the games we once played have no meaning
I've gone serious and shy and they can't figure why
So they've left me to my own daydreaming
What price to pay
For bad wisdom
What price to pay
For bad wisdom
Too young to know
Too much too soon
Bad wisdom
Bad wisdom
138. marjoribanks - 4/26/2002 6:44:02 AM
Given a universe of possible vocations why would a homosexual choose to be a Catholic priest?
A good question. The majority of catholic priests I know have grown up in conservative communities, usually traditionally-minded Catholic "ethnic" communities. These have a few things in common -
1) homosexuality is unthinkable, something to run away from - with no social sanction whatsoever
2) the priesthood is a totally acceptable and respected profession/vocation to embrace. On this point, if I wanted to become a priest every member of my immediate family would have tried to talk me out of it - but this is not the case for all families.
Then there is (3) -homosexuals already highly conflicted by their Churchs teachings about their sexuality may well (I theorize) consider the Church a release from internal turmoil because they intend on maintaining that celibacy thing. On joining the the Church, like closeted males who enter the military, or go away to liberal colleges, they find many others like themselves and more aware of the whole mess of issues involved.
This is where they need to become hypocrites about sex (if they are sane) or pathological gay-hating schizophrenics (if they're inclined to insanity). The system breeds these two kinds of people thanks to its broken input mechanisms.
139. wonkers2 - 4/26/2002 8:44:27 AM
Abusive Priests Are Varied But Treatable, Center Found
140. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 10:01:20 AM
141. wonkers2 - 4/26/2002 10:14:24 AM
CNN reports that the Boston Herald has reported a rumor that Cardinal Law will be transferred to a post in the Vatican before the Bishops' meeting in June. The transfer will also avoid his having to be deposed on his role in the Shanley affair.
142. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 10:59:12 AM
They're so clever!
143. Property of Jesus - 4/26/2002 11:17:02 AM
SEX, LIES & JOURNALISTS: Blame it on Clinton
144. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 12:57:25 PM
145. Rivendell - 4/26/2002 2:25:04 PM
E.J. Dionne is a moderate catholic voice that is hard to dismiss. He addresses the need for greater lay involvement. Until I read this column I didn't realize specific language on lay involvement had been dropped out of the formal statement from the Vatican meeting.
Banks, I agee with you about the need to end the homosexual bashing. It makes them look more than ridiculous, it makes them look very small.
If the leaders who want to go on a gay witch hunt, these same ones who dropped the language about the laity from the Vatican statement, continue on their present course then they will have done more to harm the church than a hundred Geoghans.
I like how they've announced a day in the future will be set aside for prayer and penance over the child abuse scandal. I'll pray alright. I'll pray the leaders do something to be worthy of forgiveness for what they've done.
146. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 2:40:35 PM
147. betty - 4/26/2002 2:51:09 PM
happening in my neck of the woods.
Catholic layman fired in abuse case, Diocese orders Irondequoit parish to remove him.
148. Marsie Dotes - 4/26/2002 3:52:34 PM
Having attended a Catholic college and university, I have many friends who are priests, or planned to be at one time. Many of these are homosexual. Like most Catholics I know, the fact that a priest is homosexual is less problematic than the true purpose he pursued the priesthood. Does he have a vocation or is he escaping the realities of his sexuality? My friends who sought escape have left their collars behind as the years have passed. And there is little surprise among their friends, and certainly not among their brother priests. But most importantly, I believe most of my acquaintance recognize that homosexuality does not mean pedophilia.
With respect to the current scandal, I think practicing Catholics are angry and speaking out, but will fight to change their church, rather than leave it. My faith isn't rocked by this, but I am plenty annoyed at the cardinals. The laity WILL become more involved in the church, because that is how the church will survive (witness the teachers in Catholic schools are almost entirely lay people.)
149. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 7:18:37 PM
Hey, the Pope gave me permission to have sex with you!
150. Cellar Door - 4/26/2002 7:35:33 PM
Doin' the Vatican Rag, Part 2.
151. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:01:35 AM
152. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:32:48 AM
A LAW Unto Himself
More than anything I've posted recently, thi article spells out why the Catholic Church is is on the fast-track to self-destruction.
153. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 10:48:43 AM
154. Marsie Dotes - 4/27/2002 11:50:09 AM
''These guys just don't get it,''
This sentence says it all. No worries. Law is just a guy who is losing his grip and he knows it.
155. Rama - 4/27/2002 12:15:49 PM
''These guys just don't get it,''
It does say it all.
156. LohrM - 4/27/2002 2:18:39 PM
I've always hated the phrase "you just don't get it" because it's a major cop-out. It makes the speaker feel that he has responsibility to explain or specify.
I think in many ways the Church hierarchy "gets it" very well.
They knew that cases of child abuse would only serve as weapons against the Church if revealed. Their cover-up was inept and probably doomed in any case, but they knew correctly that admitting to anything would only give ammunition to their opponents.
The Church isn't some Protestant sect where the laity are the equals (or superiors, since they often do the hiring) of the clergy. The institutional Church has survived for a couple of thousand years and plans on surviving longer. It can't do that-- it can't be a worldwide ("catholic") Church --if it allows local laity to set agendas, alter doctrine, and oppose central authority.
Too many reformers seem to want the Church to become some neighborhood town meeting and give up the tradition of being a single, central body.
157. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 2:57:47 PM
Well whether the Church wants it or not that may indeed happen, Lohr.
Crunch Time is coming with Law sceduled to give a deposition in one of the (man) civil suits being levelled against the church. If he's "recalled to Rome" it's all ovewr -- in the short run. That's what the Boston papers aresaying willhappen.Law denies it. But if he stays and is put under oath what is he going to do? Claim the privilege of the Confessional?
158. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 3:37:48 PM
"Come to Mewhen the moment is given!"
159. robertjayb - 4/27/2002 10:34:33 PM
Good Catholic Girl Rips American Cardinals...(Maureen Dowd)
160. wonkers2 - 4/27/2002 10:43:36 PM
There is some truth in Lohr's comment about the Church "getting it." I spent a fair number of years in a big company organized hierarchically, much like the Catholic Church. Instead of the Curia, we had the Treasurer's Office and Financial Staff. And like the Church, the company was usually was better at covering up than owning up to its mistakes. And it wasn't very good at rectifying them on its own. Recall campaigns were'nt invented by the automobile companies.
161. Cellar Door - 4/27/2002 11:31:49 PM
Man, can that Maureen kick butt!
162. wonkers2 - 4/27/2002 11:39:07 PM
She sure can. Re shades of gray. No doubt there are always shades of gray. But Rome was no time to point that out from a PR standpoint.
163. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:12:19 AM
This has been SUCH a PR disaster.
They'll be teaching it in schools years from now as a pluperfect example of what NOT to do and say.
164. Julius Caesar - 4/28/2002 10:13:59 AM
177 priests removed in 28 states
165. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 10:35:00 AM
They were "moved"? What's news about that? It's just Standard Operational Bullshit.
"Turned over to the authorities" would be news.
166. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 10:46:22 AM
It turns out most of them were homosexuals.
Didn't I tell you?
167. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 10:52:30 AM
Let the purges begin...
168. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:09:08 AM
You didn't "tell us" anything.
And there will be no purges. The Church will continue as it has always done -- to ignore reality.
169. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:17:24 AM
I guess Rosie isn't getting enough attention with his 15+ threads in Politics at the Atlantic...I like that guy's suggestion to boycott them all and he kindly listed them for us so we can avoid them like the plague.
I think Rosie's goal over there is to shut the forum down.
170. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:19:21 AM
He definitely wants control. I cannot but be impressed with the speed with which he operates.
L. Brent Bozell must be very proud of him.
171. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:21:08 AM
Oops...I guess I should've put that in the Inferno. Move it if you choose...
Can someone tell me why child molesters in the general population go to jail and if released, have to register with the police and many times have their names published in the paper and even have to have signs in front of their houses but these priests are seemingly skating past this same crime with little or no problems from the law?
172. judithathome - 4/28/2002 11:23:23 AM
Cellar, I'm not impressed at all...he is responsible, as usual, for ruining the rest of the forum for the rest of us. His crabbed soul is so warped, he can't stand to see people enjoy anything.
I'll stop now...y'all have a nice day.
173. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 11:27:33 AM
That's a very good question re registering molesters, judith. That would happen if the crime was reported to the authorities.
And as we know, that's not Church policy.
174. wonkers2 - 4/28/2002 11:29:39 AM
Priests and Zero Tolerance Hypocrisy--A Dissenting View
175. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:15:29 PM
Happily, there aren't any buyers for Wolfe's excuses.
176. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 12:59:38 PM
And here are some poll results
177. Property of Jesus - 4/28/2002 1:52:34 PM
The Catholic Church is not interesting in poll results. However, Sunday donations are another matter.
178. ronski - 4/28/2002 2:03:43 PM
The average emotional and sexuality maturity of a 13-year-old?
179. Cellar Door - 4/28/2002 2:14:52 PM
Great link, ronski.
180. robertjayb - 4/28/2002 4:29:35 PM
181. marjoribanks - 4/28/2002 7:13:23 PM
Lohr makes some excellent points. There is indeed, a very good reason why the Church is dealing with this American scandal so very cautiously. It must figure a few things - 1) the shitstorm in the US has come mainly from sources already highly critical/suspicious of the Church 2) the US Church already exists in a society where religion is relatively devalued and not at the center of public life and 3)- the real threat may lie in loosening the reins of this one branch of the Church - if the laity and the judicial system is allowed to have its say it weakens the position of the Church in very many countries where it remains in a position of great social and cultural power.
To the ordinary American observer, the Church has acted mystifyingly slowly and inexplicably to control its American PR debacle. But by the reckoning of the global Church, this is as it must be - the interests of the American laity are subservient to the interests of the institution worldwide. In effect, like Jim Baker who once said something like "who gives a shit about the Jews, fuck 'em, they never vote for us anyhow", the Church is taking the position "fuck the American laity, it's wishy-washy and too independent-minded anyhow" and also "fuck the many critics in the American media, they hate us anyhow". I would not be surprised if there is also a bit of "the Jews always had it in for us."
182. marjoribanks - 4/28/2002 7:13:36 PM
Let us remember just how powerful the Church still is. There are a slew of countries (many of them in Latin America) which still reckon their international positions on any number of issues according to the what the Vatican directive is. All across the Third World and parts o