Ah, but they report to someone who’s elected.
So’s the Pope! Technically.
Yeah, that “plausible deniability” thing that nobody really believed anyway? Oops.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_letter
The Pope is democratically elected. The clergy just happen to be the demos in question. Okay, technically democratically elected.
Also, the Pope isn’t infallible. He can teach ex cathedra and those teachings are infallible but they’re also quite rare. John Paul II did it twice in his entire life.
The whole thing is just another clusterfuck-style mess and the Catholic Church needs a few more modern people at the top. Benedict wasn’t a bad choice per se but he wasn’t a good one, either. Too traditional. I feel like a complete arse for saying this but those guys are shuffling slowly off the mortal coil so we may see changes. May.
Addendum: Mightynute gets a big bearhug for managing to be a moderate voice of reason in a religious thread and providing good information and opinions. Totally platonic bearhug. Totally.
awesome
In what way was Benedict not a bad choice? Following the last John Paul, he seems like an absolute shit choice – doctrinaire, formerly of the (modern version of the) Inquisition, very old-school Teutonic and authoritarian. His handling of this crisis seems proof that he’s wrong, wrong, wrong for the challenges the church is facing today.
I agree, Repo. To be fair, considering some of the pretty awesome things John Paul did (standing up to Communism, apologizing for the crusades, saying “yeah maybe there is something to evolution” etc) not many would’ve compared well. I mean, not many Catholics, anyway. ;)
I was hoping that because he’s one of the stronger theologians and a brilliant mind, he might make some intelligent choices and few bad ones. Particularly as he was supposed to be a stop-gap short term Pope. More fool me.
By not bad, by the way, I didn’t mean that he was a good choice. I just meant he didn’t seem to be a bad choice at the time. That previous post is missing the words “At the time”. He’s proving to be a poor choice made by old cardinals who are too conservative and needed to feel they were relevant after the more liberal John Paul II.
This thread has more Jason McCullough posts I agree with than the rest of Qt3. Allow me to offer a hearty brofist to celebrate. Or in light of this thread, is that celibate?
I don’t have the cite off-hand but that was one of the things I remember coming out of the U.S. priest sex abuse scandals, was the the incidence of pedophile in the priesthood was the same as in the general population.
I would also second the notion that the celibacy of the priesthood is probably a draw for many who have issues with their sexuality.
Yeah, same here. Which spawns the question: Who is this guy, and what has he done with Jason?
I think it just means that you don’t have to be a liberal or a conservative to be against raping children.
THANK you!
H.
By the way, as much as I think Benedict is some sort of satanic plant, or possibly some guy doing performance art to simulate what hardcore atheists imagine the pope is like, Jon Paul was just as awful on this issue.
From what I read, at least from the Milwaukee case here. I don’t know how much the vatican was at fault for that one being missed. Apparently all that was done was 2 letters were sent by those investigating the incident. To which no reply came.
That one was really the local diocese fault.
I would also like to point out that this title is awful. Seriously. The catholic church isn’t evil… Just some of the people running it.
Guys – If you are truly interested in understanding the problem with sexual abuse in the Church (American, anyway), the place to start is with the Jay Report:
[Google Jay Report --sorry, too much of a n00b to post links]
A few facts to address just a few of the things already said here:
-
There is, in fact, a zero tolerance policy in place now. But remember that there are few cases that are from the last twenty years. Most are from the 60s and 70s.
-
Pope Benedict has taken the problem much more seriously than his predecessor. Regardless, much of the problem has taken place because of bishops’ actions without the direct knowledge of the pope.
[Google the recent articles of John Allen on Benedict]
-
You would not excommunicate a priest for something like this. But you certainly can (and should) defrock him.
-
The Catholic Church recognizes the authority of the secular state to prosecute offenders.
-
Indeed, in a significant number of the abuse cases the victims were not precisely children, in terms of sexual maturity. That doesn’t excuse the crime–it’s still a grotesque abuse of someone who is weak by someone in a position of power–but it does make it something slightly different (and, yes, it brings in valid, though not simple, questions about the role of homosexuality) and those who are discussing it should be a little more thoughtful in talking about child rape, etc.
And a matter of opinion: I fail to see what the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy has to do with this matter, despite how often it is brought up as a solution. If these sleazy priests could have KEPT their vows of celibacy, we wouldn’t have this problem. Also, those who insist that ending celibacy would be a great solution otherwise rarely give a crap for the betterment of the institution (considering it, to steal a phrase, either “evil or very evil”) and therefore probably should keep their mouths shut on Catholic dogma.
Ahhh, here we go… cracks knuckles, readies flamethrower
The fact of the Catholic tradition of priestly celibacy comes, if I’m not mistaken, from a comment that the apostle Paul makes (1 Corinthians 7:32, etc) about a man who doesn’t marry somehow being of a whole mind towards God, while those who do have their minds split between God and the world. Of course, on account of this, many who would like to think of themselves as being wholly devoted to God would then become priests, even though they are horny as hell and really need to get laid. I’d go as far as to say that guilt would drive the really horny into the priesthood on purpose. That is, of course, the connection: The mere vow of celibacy, combined with a well-taught guilt over one’s lust, selects the lustful to become priests, even above the celibate. The hilarious thing is how effective marriage can be about killing the lust. :)
Thus it is the vow of celibacy and the apparent need for it that is the problem itself. It’s like how all those girls who take virginity oaths actually have a higher incidence of breaking them than those who don’t. You can’t blame them for breaking their vows; it was their own guilt over the power of their natural libidos which drew them to the vows to begin with.
Yet in this same chapter of Corinthians Paul essentially contradicts that: “It is better to marry than to burn with passion.” But of course, that cuts of the priesthood as a profession. Which is just silly.
As for me not giving a crap about the betterment of the institution, well, that’s why we had that whole Reformation in the first place, you nitwit; once upon a time in Wittenberg, this was very much about making the Catholic Church a better institution. If y’all had been more open-minded to some of these ideas, not only might we have spared a few young boys’ innocence, but we might not have had to split the church up in the first place.
Put simply, yeah, it’s not about the betterment of the Catholic Church; it’s about the betterment of humanity and the lives of the young boys. Now in MY book, that’s a bit more important. But I’m just one of those damned Protestants; what do I know?
I was given to understand that the requirement to not be married was to ensure that any property a priest owned at time of death would revert to property of the church, rather than any possible family relation.
I of course do not know the fact of the matter, but Occam’s Razor seems to apply.
It came about as I understand because priests, bishops and I believe a Pope or two were keeping it all in the family instead of acting in the best interests of their community etc. It’s a particular problem when someone of power like a Pope or a Bishop is selected by descent (which did happen) rather than any other method. That’s why it happened, the Corinthians stuff is a theological justification for returning to or enforcing the doctrines of celibacy.
Take a gander at the wiki article which covers different areas and is well cited- it’s quite clear that married man can become priests and that there’s no law+ that says they can’t in the church. However the current administrations follow a different line, which is unlikely to change. Married priests of other denominations that convert are allowed to remain married, for example.
Stuff about Protestantism vs Catholicism: we’ve been smacking each other over the head with that stuff for far longer than most countries have been in existence. Is it alright if we give that a miss?
+It’s a discipline, not a doctrine.
Let’s say that you live by Farmer John. Farmer John has a field full of watermelons, and every time you go past that field of watermelons, you feel like you really, really want to put your penis in one for a little while. There’s a big sign, however, right there on the field that says that if you so much as think about putting your penis in that watermelon, there will be dire consequences. Moreover, people talk about how it’s just plain immoral how some people like to wear watermelons on their dicks all the time. It’s unnatural. It’s INHUMAN.
Now, it so happens you live in a weird town where all the people who work in the road maintenance crew have to promise that they will never put their penises in ANYTHING because they lost a bet with the sanitation department a few decades back. For all those normal humans out there that like to put their penises in ladies, that’s kind of a dealbreaker. I mean, it’s a fine job and whatever, but I’d rather work for the sanitation commission and put my penis in the occasional woman than work in road maintenance and spend the rest of my life wanting to. For a guy who’s already not allowed to do what he wants to with his dick, however, that’s not really much of an obstacle. Our unfortunate melonfucker isn’t going to be able to fuck what he wants to fuck whether he’s in road maintenance or not, so, you know, why the hell not? Plus, nobody could accuse him of being, like, a closeted melonfucker, secretly burning at night for the passionate touch of nature’s tastiest laxative, because the road maintenance crew is ABOVE that kind of thing, dammit. They are not subject to that earthly sin of the flesh. I mean, when you think about it, the fact that not only do they not fuck lucious, beautiful, curvaceous watermelons, but nothing at all is really just an indication that they’re far more dedicated to the noble work of keeping up the roads, not allowing themselves to be distracted by their weak and fleshy desires.
Unfortunately, it turns out that there’s a road that runs by Farmer John’s melon patch. In fact, the entire town council takes a vote, and they decide that they need to build a new road that goes THROUGH part of it. Right through it. The road maintenance crew is going to have to pull up some of those melons and transfer the plants to somewhere else, not in the way of the road. So it’s late one night and it’s been a long day and you notice that most of your coworkers have gone home…surely nobody would notice if you just put your dick in this one, little watermelon. Just for a little while. Just to know what it feels like, to prove to yourself that you’re strong enough to resist your horrible, corrupted nature. Besides - the town SENT YOU HERE. They told you to do what needed to be done to this melon. And I think we all know what needed to be done.
THAT is the problem with celibacy vows, the Catholic priesthood, and Catholic culture. There’s only one kind of sexuality that you’re allowed to have, and if you don’t subscribe to that particular persuasion, you are a bad person. If you’re a boy and the thought of another boy makes you all fidgety in your swimsuit area, you are a bad human being. You are going to hell. You must NEVER, EVER, EVER engage in the behavior that you want to do. You must, in other words, be celibate, for all intents and purposes. Given the choice between being celibate and an accountant, who has authority over some numbers at a business, and being celibate and a priest, who has authority over a whole congregation, and who gets to know the dude who told him not to put his dick in the watermelon in the first place and try to understand it, and serve the guy he already feels like he’s letting down by being the way he is - the priesthood is just plain more attractive. That goes for ANY non-traditional sexuality. Pedophiles, homosexuals - anybody that doesn’t have the proper Christian sexual impulse is, in this scenario, going to be at least a little bit more motivated to join the clergy than his standard issue peers. People suck at denying their sexual motivation. There’s a reason why chemical castration is currently the only really effective method I have heard of for controlling actual, real, honest-to-God pedophilia. If you pop wood every time you walk by the watermelon patch, it might not be today, and it might not be tomorrow, but some time before you die you are almost definitely going to end up out in that field balls deep in a watermelon. It takes an immensely strong will to deny that kind of basic urge, and lots of people just don’t have it in them.
It only makes it worse that priests who happen to have to deal with this burden end up getting placed in a position of unquestioned authority over precisely the sorts of individuals they want to have sex with. Pedophile priests who joined the clergy because they knew it was wrong that they got hard watching kids play at the park end up getting put IN CHARGE OF KIDS. Gay priests who joined the clergy because they knew it was wrong that they wanted to lick whipped cream off of Tom Cruise’s sculpted inner thigh get placed in charge of teenage altar boys, and the part of your brain that governs initial sexual response doesn’t really recognize the difference between a 14 year old, well developed boy and an 18 year old one, and then one afternoon it’s just the priest and the altar boy alone together and some inappropriate touching happens and it’s downhill from there. If the celibacy vow were removed OR homosexuality were not as stigmatized in the church as it is, there would be less of a problem with dudes who are trying some variation of “Pray out the gay” giving in to the biological urges that they’ve been told all their life are wrong, horrible things to have with vulnerable people.
Imagine, if you could, a world where sexual congress with women was frowned upon and the natural, appropriate thing to do was to have sex with other people who were exactly like you in the plumbing department. Imagine that you were told from a very early age that a man so much as wondering what it would feel like inside of one of those filthy, unclean ladies is a terrible crime against nature and God and everything. Imagine living your entire life with that guilt, and trying to find some way to assuage it, and eventually settling on devoting yourself to the service of The Lord to try and mitigate the vileness of your basic nature. Then, imagine being put in charge of a convent. Imagine having to teach gym class for the sophomore class at the associated school for young girls. Imagine having to make sure that they’ve all showered after a hard day of soccer or whatever. How do you think that you would do resisting the urge to ask, just once, just to see what it was like, this sixteen year old girl over whom you have authority, who acts like she wants to make you happy to let you touch her? Just a little.