Meanwhile back in the world of faith-based child molestation

[tagos]

Dutch Roman Catholic Church 'castrated at least 10 boys (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html)

Two clergymen were convicted of abuse but Mr Heithuis, a victim, was nonetheless transferred by police to a Catholic psychiatric hospital before being admitted to the St. Joseph Hospital in Veghel later that year.

There, court papers confirm, he was castrated "at his own request", despite no submission of his written consent. Sources told Mr Dohmen that the surgical removal of testicles was regarded as a treatment for homosexuality and also as a punishment for those who accused clergy of sexual abuse.

Cornelius Rogge, 79, a well-known Dutch sculptor whose family knew Mr Heithuis in the 1950s, reported the castration to an official inquiry into abuse within the Catholic Church. But his evidence was ignored.

Evidence emerged on Monday that government inspectors were aware that minors were being castrated while in Catholic-run psychiatric institutions.

Minutes of meetings held in the 1950s show that inspectors were present when castrations were discussed. The documents also reveal that the Catholic staff did not think parents needed to be involved.

Suffer the little children to come unto me, indeed.

[Czarcasm]

Sonofabitch!

[purplehorseshoe]

Izzat really true? For reals? If so ... I ... words fail me.

[Typo Negative]

So....he is molested by pedophiles in the church....then castrated by the church to cure his homosexuality? And to shut him up? And the government knew about it and was even there when it was being discussed??

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::confused::confused::mad:

[kayaker]

The only shocking thing is that people are shocked.

[muldoonthief]

So....he is molested by pedophiles in the church....then castrated by the church to cure his homosexuality? And to shut him up? And the government knew about it and was even there when it was being discussed??

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::confused::confused::mad:

It was almost 60 years ago. The church now has a much more progressive attitude (http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/) towards abuse victims.

[BigAppleBucky]

It was almost 60 years ago. The church now has a much more progressive attitude (http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/) towards abuse victims.

Sometimes the Onion comes too close to the truth to be comfortable.

[Cartooniverse]

So....he is molested by pedophiles in the church....then castrated by the church to cure his homosexuality? And to shut him up? And the government knew about it and was even there when it was being discussed??

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::confused::confused::mad:

Oh, don't fucking get me started. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/cardinal-bernard-law-resigns_n_1106098.html) :mad:

Then again, why not. Years ago I wrote a post here on the Dope at the height of the scandal involving that deeply sick criminal pedophile, Cardinal Bernard Law of the Boston Diocese of the RCC. I wanted him stripped of his office and defrocked. Oh, how people went after me. Oh, the outrage. Oh, the indignation that I'd dare attack a Cardinal.

Check it out folks. That piece of shit is over and done. They went and squirreled him away in Rome, which is in of itself pretty appalling. Expected, but wow. Appalling. Now, he's done.

Took long enough.

Dude needs to fly to Boston and turn himself in. Ooops, wait, that'd be the Christian thing to do, wouldn't it?

I won't wait up nights.

[Robot Arm]

So....he is molested by pedophiles in the church....then castrated by the church to cure his homosexuality?And then he has to confess to them that it happened.

[Monty]

Wait a minute. Isn't that particular church against any form of birth control other than abstinences and rhythm method?

[Rachellelogram]

And here I thought the Catholic Church stopped cutting off prepubescent balls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato) in the 1800s.

[mister nyx]

Uh, so is this supposed to be surprising or something? Of course kids who were queer (or who were perceived as being queer) got tortured. That's not really news.

[Condescending Robot]

Cutting off people's balls for reporting on you molesting them is so absurdly evil that it does make one wonder why on earth the Catholic Church is still allowed to exist.

[Der Trihs]

Cutting off people's balls for reporting on you molesting them is so absurdly evil that it does make one wonder why on earth the Catholic Church is still allowed to exist.Because they are a powerful religion. If they were some minor religion or a non-religious organization* they would long since have been driven to bankruptcy, legally dismantled, or outright destroyed by military force. Just imagine would would happen if it was discovered that, say, Microsoft was shielding pedophiles and engaging in the rest of what the CC has done. Even corporations are held to higher moral standards than religions are.


* Besides a powerful foreign government that is - and a powerful government would still be condemned for something like this even if it was too dangerous to outright attack. A weak government on the other hand could expect a visit from some cruise missiles at the very least.

[Autolycus]

Cutting off people's balls for reporting on you molesting them is so absurdly evil that it does make one wonder why on earth the Catholic Church is still allowed to exist.

Not all Catholic priests castrate little boys.

Seriously though, you're right. This was appallingly evil. But large entities, religions and governments, sometimes do amazingly evil things. The US government gave people syphilis without their knowledge or consent as an experiment. Should the entire government have resigned? I don't intend on debating the issue over this shockingly shocking shocker, but I'd say the organizations are still around because they are A) powerful, B)long-lasting, and C) Do a service that is viewed as more good than harm.

[Ferret Herder]

Seriously though, you're right. This was appallingly evil. But large entities, religions and governments, sometimes do amazingly evil things. The US government gave people syphilis without their knowledge or consent as an experiment. Should the entire government have resigned?
To be picky about it, unless there's another violation of research patients' rights that I missed, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) failed to treat the participants once a known cure for syphilis was discovered. These men already had syphilis before participating, and the study was originally thought up as a long-term observational study to collect data on how syphilis progresses in people. This would be useful since this hadn't been studied in a detailed fashion before, and anyway there wasn't a cure when the study started.

Once a cure was found (by people outside the study), the researchers had a duty to inform their subjects and offer treatment, but failed to do so due to their interest in continuing to collect data on what syphilis does during its disease cycle.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What is it about the 1950s that made people such fucking assholes?

[Mr. Moto]

unless there's another violation of research patients' rights that I missed....

You missed the Cutler "experiments" in Guatemala, done under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Look it up if you have a strong stomach.

Incidentally, both Cutler and Thomas Parran, the U.S. Surgeon General at the time, were faculty at the University of Pittsburgh, my alma mater. Pitt is trying to deal now with these revelations, and it has been somewhat trying for them. They have been forthcoming about their findings, which is more than I can say about some other universities.

[Ferret Herder]

You missed the Cutler "experiments" in Guatemala, done under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Look it up if you have a strong stomach.

Incidentally, both Cutler and Thomas Parran, the U.S. Surgeon General at the time, were faculty at the University of Pittsburgh, my alma mater. Pitt is trying to deal now with these revelations, and it has been somewhat trying for them. They have been forthcoming about their findings, which is more than I can say about some other universities.
Well, hell. I retract my statement above, and it turns out Cutler was (not surprisingly) involved in both the Tuskegee and the Guatemala experiments; the latter were in the 1940s.

As a member of my medical institution's Institutional Review Board (which helps oversee safety and ethics of human subjects experiments conducted here), I thought I had a pretty decent background in the history of the failure of researchers to adequately, humanely protect their human subjects. Either I forgot about this shameful episode or never learned about it, and in any case, it is a failing on my part to not have recalled that this happened.

(And I'm sorry for the prolonged hijack. I'd just listened to Radiolab's podcast episode about Alan Turing being sentenced to estrogen treatments in the UK to try to suppress his homosexuality, and I hate that I'm not surprised that this horrible reprisal against homosexual or molested youth happened around the same time period. May someday people learn of such things and be honestly shocked that it could ever have happened.)

[Vinyl Turnip]

What is it about the 1950s that made people such fucking assholes?

The haircuts, I think.

Years ago I wrote a post here on the Dope at the height of the scandal involving that deeply sick criminal pedophile, Cardinal Bernard Law of the Boston Diocese of the RCC. I wanted him stripped of his office and defrocked. Oh, how people went after me. Oh, the outrage. Oh, the indignation that I'd dare attack a Cardinal.

This statement struck me as highly unlikely, and I believe my instincts were correct. If this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=120643) is the thread you're referring to, it doesn't contain anything remotely resembling "attacks" on you. It does, however, contain a good deal of uncontrolled frothing by you.

[tagos]

Not all Catholic priests castrate little boys.

Seriously though, you're right. This was appallingly evil. But large entities, religions and governments, sometimes do amazingly evil things. The US government gave people syphilis without their knowledge or consent as an experiment. Should the entire government have resigned? I don't intend on debating the issue over this shockingly shocking shocker, but I'd say the organizations are still around because they are A) powerful, B)long-lasting, and C) Do a service that is viewed as more good than harm.

With regards to the Catholic Church and its giant, world-stretching catalogue of past crimes and the ongoing crimes of its attitude to homosexuality, contraception and AIDS alongside its never-ending attempts to avoid blame or punishment for past crimes I'm finding Point C very hard to credit.

[Maastricht]

So....he is molested by pedophiles in the church....then castrated by the church to cure his homosexuality? And to shut him up? And the government knew about it and was even there when it was being discussed??

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::confused::confused::mad:It is true. I saw leading headlines and an extensive background article in Dutch national newspapers last weekend.

Except the part about the government knowing; it was just church officials who knew. When one victim stepped forward about twenty years ago, a legal case was prepared, but the victim died in an sudden car crash before the case went to trial and the case was dropped.

[Scholar Beardpig]

One day, one of the world's nations will have the courage to round up all their priests and monks and nuns, whoever they are and whatever they've done, frog-march them onto a ship, and send them back to Rome, and outlaw that fell organization as the criminal syndicate that it really is.

If they really want to make me happy, then once it gets over the horizon, they can send a submarine after it...

[purplehorseshoe]

I had to look up (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frog-march)frog-march. More ignorance-fighting! (Is it a regionalism?)

[gamerunknown]

Well, America would then be devoid of Billy Talen and Father Berrigan.

On the other hand if the loyalists got their way in Spain there would be no requiem masses for Hitler there every year... Hrmm.

[Dangerosa]

One day, one of the world's nations will have the courage to round up all their priests and monks and nuns, whoever they are and whatever they've done, frog-march them onto a ship, and send them back to Rome, and outlaw that fell organization as the criminal syndicate that it really is.

If they really want to make me happy, then once it gets over the horizon, they can send a submarine after it...

I grew up around catholic nuns, and the ones I knew were hardworking, honest, women with impeccable ethics. They were nurses, not teachers (the other big profession for nuns). Even the teaches I knew were good human beings however, although often of a different era where smacking fingers with a ruler was appropriate. Please don't paint everyone in catholic orders with that very wide brush.

[Buck Godot]

I grew up around catholic nuns, and the ones I knew were hardworking, honest, women with impeccable ethics. They were nurses, not teachers (the other big profession for nuns). Even the teaches I knew were good human beings however, although often of a different era where smacking fingers with a ruler was appropriate. Please don't paint everyone in catholic orders with that very wide brush.

This matches the experience my wife has with certain Nun orders. The church would be a whole lot different (better) if the nuns were in charge.

[Scholar Beardpig]

I grew up around catholic nuns, and the ones I knew were hardworking, honest, women with impeccable ethics. They were nurses, not teachers (the other big profession for nuns). Even the teaches I knew were good human beings however, although often of a different era where smacking fingers with a ruler was appropriate. Please don't paint everyone in catholic orders with that very wide brush.

Complicity in the guilt of others is guilt in itself. When someone does evil, you sever ties with them. Continued membership in such an organization, even despite its very public sins, should be enough to cast a pall over anyone's character. When the police raid a whorehouse, the janitors get booked, too - even though the janitors are doing the same thing there as they do anywhere.

[Blake]

The church would be a whole lot different (better) if the nuns were in charge.

Are you fucking kidding?

Read about the Madelene asylums sometime. Nuns routinely and repeatedly raped, sexually abused, tortured and starved girls. At least 150 girls died and were buried in unmarked graves, some literally in the basement. We will never know how they died, but it's safe to assume that since the deaths were hidden from authorities at great effort, that it was not pleasant.

Yeah, the world would be much better is run by nuns.

Compared to the Magdelene nuns, who appear to have killed hundreds of the girls they were abusing, the priests only castrated a dozen boys that they were abusing and the priests didn't kill any that we know of.

[JRDelirious]

Y'know, I get the feeling that if Jesus does show up again, he's gonna tell everyone else to just sit there awaiting judgment while he heads for the institutions that claimed to represent him and administers some heavy-ass smiting, while telling the rest of us "relax, you're getting nothing like this..."

[RickJay]

Complicity in the guilt of others is guilt in itself. When someone does evil, you sever ties with them.
"Complicity" does not mean what you think it means.

Continued membership in such an organization, even despite its very public sins, should be enough to cast a pall over anyone's character.
What country are you a citizen of, and do you pay taxes?

[Blake]

What country are you a citizen of, and do you pay taxes?

In your country, are those things voluntary?

Because in my country, we don't get a say about citizenship, it's foisted on us the moment we are born and can only be renounced when you gain another citizenship, which is not possible for the vast majority of people.

Paying taxes is also not voluntary.

Or perhaps you are arguing that nuns would be imprisoned if they left the church?

It's little hard to make out what your argument is, but neither one makes any sense.

[Condescending Robot]

I grew up around catholic nuns, and the ones I knew were hardworking, honest, women with impeccable ethics. They were nurses, not teachers (the other big profession for nuns). Even the teaches I knew were good human beings however, although often of a different era where smacking fingers with a ruler was appropriate. Please don't paint everyone in catholic orders with that very wide brush.

Pretty much the entire Catholic hierarchy is complicit in enabling and protecting child molestors. The fact that not all of them actually did the diddling doesn't reduce their guilt as a criminal conspiracy.

[RickJay]

In your country, are those things voluntary?

Because in my country, we don't get a say about citizenship, it's foisted on us the moment we are born and can only be renounced when you gain another citizenship, which is not possible for the vast majority of people.

Paying taxes is also not voluntary.
Depending on what country you live in, you can always leave.

"Complicity" requires a lot more association than just "happens to belong to the same global organization." If we were to find out Steve Jobs was a mass murderer, the guy at the Apple Store who sold me my kid's iPod Touch is not "complicit" in that crime.

[Princhester]

Complicity in the guilt of others is guilt in itself. When someone does evil, you sever ties with them. Continued membership in such an organization, even despite its very public sins, should be enough to cast a pall over anyone's character. When the police raid a whorehouse, the janitors get booked, too - even though the janitors are doing the same thing there as they do anywhere.

Those who broadbrush this stuff, condemning every member or official of the church - no matter if not actually complicit - along with the guilty, don't in my mind exhibit any sense of justice. I'm as anti religion as anyone, but I don't think that headway is made by such vicious generalisations.

[Der Trihs]

Those who broadbrush this stuff, condemning every member or official of the church - no matter if not actually complicit - along with the guilty, don't in my mind exhibit any sense of justice. Why does this religion deserve such special treatment? If some other non-religious organization was guilty of the same things (some company or political party for example), I can pretty much guarantee than most people would condemn every person who remained a member of it or supported it in any way.

[sisu]

Are you fucking kidding?

Read about the Madelene asylums sometime. Nuns routinely and repeatedly raped, sexually abused, tortured and starved girls. At least 150 girls died and were buried in unmarked graves, some literally in the basement. We will never know how they died, but it's safe to assume that since the deaths were hidden from authorities at great effort, that it was not pleasant.

Yeah, the world would be much better is run by nuns.

Compared to the Magdelene nuns, who appear to have killed hundreds of the girls they were abusing, the priests only castrated a dozen boys that they were abusing and the priests didn't kill any that we know of.

Please note this was not a strictly Catholic thing and also plenty of priests and lay people were involved. These disgusting events were allowed to happen even though he government at the time were aware of the issues.

[Princhester]

Why does this religion deserve such special treatment? If some other non-religious organization was guilty of the same things (some company or political party for example), I can pretty much guarantee than most people would condemn every person who remained a member of it or supported it in any way.

As to your first sentence, it doesn't. As to your second sentence, if people think that way then my opinion of them is the same.

[Princhester]

I should add: ... assuming the organisation they are broad brushing is one as enormous and disparate as the RCC.

[Der Trihs]

I should add: ... assuming the organisation they are broad brushing is one as enormous and disparate as the RCC.Size is irrelevant. And it doesn't matter how "disparate" it is; if someone pays into the institution and supports it, they are enabling its unethical activities like shielding child molesters regardless of whether or not they personally approve. In fact given that it isn't remotely democratic, regardless of whether they mean to or not they are effectively expressing their approval of the Church's actions in the only way that matters to it.

[Princhester]

Right. So the parents who send their children to my local Catholic school in Brisbane (which has a reputation for good caring teachers and effective learning) are enabling and approving a priest in Ireland who molests boys.

The RCC is enormous. It is far from unitary. It is not all one legal entity. While there is in theory a unitary management structure, it is loose to an extent such as to make nonsense of the notion that every far flung RCC body is governed from Rome.

In other words your post shows the level of wisdom and perspective we have come to expect from you.

[Maastricht]

Complicity in the guilt of others is guilt in itself. When someone does evil, you sever ties with them. Continued membership in such an organization, even despite its very public sins, should be enough to cast a pall over anyone's character. When the police raid a whorehouse, the janitors get booked, too - even though the janitors are doing the same thing there as they do anywhere.I'm with Beardpig and Der Trihs on this one. The problem with the slippery Catholic church is that is presents itself in two diametrically opposite ways. Sometimes being a Catholic is an individual feeling a personal connection with God; but at other times, the Church presents itself as an very clearly defined organization with strict tenets and hierarchical decisions.
Whenever an individual Catholic wants to distance his or herself from the latter, they claim to be really the former. And how would it be possible to sever ties with that personal connection because of what some individuals do?
But when that same Catholic wants to make moral decisions for his or her personal life based on that individually felt connection to God and " good" , the Church yells at him to get back in his cage and that the only way to God is their way.

[Princhester]

The last part of your post is a laughable caricature. The RCC doesn't and has no means by which to know or do anything about much of what Catholics do. They aren't Big Brother, even if parts of the hierarchy would like them to be. They don't have a camera in every home let alone in every mind.

And the rest of your post is a perfect illustration of how the organisation is so loose and disparate that to blame one person in one part of it for the acts of another person a world away is monstrously unjust.

My consistent view is that major religions are more akin to cultures than unitary bodies or distinct philosophies. Blaming a Catholic in New Zealand for being part of the RCC due to something somone in the RCC did in the US is like blaming a modern German for WWII or all Americans for My Lai.

[Blake]

You do realise that Catholic sexual abuse of children has also been horrifically common in Australia and New Zealand too, right? Complete with the attendant suicides of victims, moving priests to other parishes and not telling anyone and all the rest of the sickening assistance given to paedophiles every where else int he world?

Are the parents who send their children to your local Catholic school in Brisbane also not enabling and approving a priest in Brisbane who molests boys (http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page2.html).

What about the priest in that very parish who molested boys? How about a priest in that very school?

It never ceases to amaze me the excuses that people will make for their religions. I suspect that if I could provide iron clad evidence that priests at that very school were anally raping children last weak, you still would not accept that the parents paying money to that school were in any way responsible.

[Der Trihs]

And the rest of your post is a perfect illustration of how the organisation is so loose and disparate that to blame one person in one part of it for the acts of another person a world away is monstrously unjust.A "loose, disparate" organization that managed a decades-long, systematic international cover-up of child molesting priests, complete with moving them between parishes and nations to keep them ahead of their reputations. That's an odd definition of "loose".

[Blake]

A "loose, disparate" organization that managed a decades-long, systematic international cover-up of child molesting priests, complete with moving them between parishes and nations to keep them ahead of their reputations. That's an odd definition of "loose".

You know, I don't think I have ever agreed with Der Trihs on anything, but in this he is dead right.

The kind of international conspiracy that the church engaged in with sexual abuse, with the literal complicity of all levels of the heirarchy from laiety to the Pope himself makes any claim that the church is a "loose, disparate" organisation absolutely laughable.

[tagos]

When one victim stepped forward about twenty years ago, a legal case was prepared, but the victim died in an sudden car crash before the case went to trial and the case was dropped.

God moves in mysterious ways.

[tagos]

A "loose, disparate" organization that managed a decades-long, systematic international cover-up of child molesting priests, complete with moving them between parishes and nations to keep them ahead of their reputations. That's an odd definition of "loose".

quite, The RCC, practically since its inception has been a moral blot on the face of the world. Only the nature and scale of its crimes against humanity change over time.

[Princhester]

Are the parents who send their children to your local Catholic school in Brisbane also not enabling and approving a priest in Brisbane who molests boys (http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page2.html).

Yes of course. They send their kids to their local Catholic school because they approve of boys being fucked up the ass by priests. Are you actually thinking about what you are saying before you are saying it? Have you, for a single moment, attempted to think about it from the point of view of such a parent and their subjective views? If you haven't you aren't getting to grips with the topic, and if you have and still think parents approve of molestation you are a fool.

And you really can be a dumbshit sometimes Blake. I'm an atheist, I've posted to that effect in innumerable threads on these boards and said as much in an earlier posting in this thread. I wouldn't send my children to a religious school in a blue fit. Your assumptions about what excuses I would make for "my religion" (snerk) are about as accurate as the rest of your thoughts on this subject. Unlike you I'm not so blinkered that I immediately assume someone must be of the same worldview as those they stand up for. Perhaps you are projecting.

And Der Trihs, you may think the RCC can't be loose or disparate because of such control as it can exercise, but then of course it's not as if any catholics use birth control, right?

[Der Trihs]

Yes of course. They send their kids to their local Catholic school because they approve of boys being fucked up the ass by priests.
Hardly; it's that they don't care or in denial about it. The Church is Good, it must be Good, and no facts that contradict that Goodness are permissible or thinkable. The same thing that let the Church get away with what it did for so very long. If it comes down to a choice between the welfare of their child and the reputation of the Church, any good believer will sacrifice their child. And that's exactly what parent after parent did.

And Der Trihs, you may think the RCC can't be loose or disparate because of such control as it can exercise, but then of course it's not as if any catholics use birth control, right?Birth control isn't nearly as important. Using birth control doesn't risk the reputation or income of the Church, it doesn't threaten the priesthood's alleged moral authority. And that's the laity anyway, not the hierarchy of the church; they aren't "the organization" in the first place.

And most importantly we know what it did, and a "loose disparate" organization simply could not have done that.

[gamerunknown]

They aren't Big Brother, even if parts of the hierarchy would like them to be. They don't have a camera in every home let alone in every mind.

Actually, the Pope upheld an excommunication of any Call to Action members. So those that practice (or even advocate) contraception are in danger of not being allowed to receive communion from their local parish (and if a priest is found to advocate contraception then he too will be recalled, so he has good reason to enforce that rule). Jesus may have been the first one to bring a charge of thought crime against the populace, what with their lusting in their own hearts.

Besides, observant Catholics donate money every week which goes towards the hundreds of millions the Church has had to pay out to victims of rape. I say this as someone that still infrequently attends Church and puts money in the collection, trying not to think about where the funds will go.

[Boyo Jim]

Fortunately for priests, but unfortunately for the rest of us, using birth control is not necessary when fucking young boys. If it were, they wouldn't do it, because birth control is immoral. :)

[Boyo Jim]

What is it about the 1950s that made people such fucking assholes?

We couldn't let the Soviets get ahead of us in child castration!

[Boyo Jim]

On a more serious note, given the times and the attitudes toward homosexuality back then, I would be surprised if this, er... remedy was restricted to the Dutch Catholic church, or any church for that matter.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that there are thousands of men all over the world who were castrated during the same period, and have never spoken out due to fear or shame.

[gamerunknown]

Thomas Jefferson recommended castration for homosexuals and that was the progressive option.

Actually, that's probably the most progressive option for sex offenders now (probably not physical castration and with post-18th century surgical techniques if necessary) given that aversion therapy has been pretty much conclusively shown to be ineffective.

[Strassia]

Depending on what country you live in, you can always leave.

"Complicity" requires a lot more association than just "happens to belong to the same global organization." If we were to find out Steve Jobs was a mass murderer, the guy at the Apple Store who sold me my kid's iPod Touch is not "complicit" in that crime.
Let me tweak your analogy to make it a little more accurate:

If we where to find out that:
* in every state in the country Apple Geniuses were stalking and raping customers using information gathered on the job
* every level of the Apple corporation, including Steve Jobs, was aware of this
* the Geniuses were "forgiven" and moved to different stores multiple times to keep them ahead of police investigations but still given access to customer information
* orders were given to fire, blackball, and destroy anyone who made this public at the specific direction Tim Cook (current CEO)
* all this came out years ago
* the company still holds itself blameless and fights any call for change
would you still hold those who continue to work for Apple and own its stock blameless?

[RTFirefly]

Not all Catholic priests castrate little boys.

Seriously though, you're right. This was appallingly evil. But large entities, religions and governments, sometimes do amazingly evil things. The US government gave people syphilis without their knowledge or consent as an experiment. Should the entire government have resigned? I don't intend on debating the issue over this shockingly shocking shocker, but I'd say the organizations are still around because they are A) powerful, B)long-lasting, and C) Do a service that is viewed as more good than harm.There's one big reason why I'm gonna cut the Roman Catholic Church a lot less slack than I'd give the U.S. government.

We'd like to believe our government acts within some sort of moral code, but OTOH we know that governments, almost by design, aren't always moral entities, and they weren't set up that way. Governments are always going to be doing morally dubious things in the name of protecting their citizens, for instance.

But the Church is supposedly the expression of Jesus Christ on earth. It exists only for the purpose of being a positive moral force in the world. If it is involved in great and widespread evil, then it undermines its very reason for being.

Besides, we don't need to have a Roman Catholic Church: if it's not being a force for good, then the world will be no worse off when it sells off everything it owns, distributes the proceeds to its victims, and goes out of business.

But regardless of the evil that various governments have done, including ours, the reality is that the world needs governments: Hobbes was right in his belief that even a very evil government can be better than no government at all, though one can argue over where one would draw the line. Certainly the people of the United States, and the world for that matter, would be much worse off if the U.S. government dissolved itself over shame for everything from Jim Crow to torturing persons captured in our recent overseas adventures.

[WhyNot]

What is it about the 1950s that made people such fucking assholes?

It came just before the Baby Boomers got power.

Seriously. There were fucking assholes doing "scientific" experiments on uninformed test subjects back when Og wanted to see what would happen if he hit people on the head with a rock.

But much as I hate the Baby Boomers for many things, I have to admit that they had some pretty awesome ideas about how women and brown people and even young people (teens, lets not go crazy and include small children) are quite possibly thinking, feeling human beings just like white men and maybe we should respect that. More importantly, they had the guts and the energy and the sheer mass of numbers to make laws protecting rights for those groups.

I don't think it's that the 1950s were particularly ripe with assholes, I think it's that most of history was ripe with assholes, and the 1960's and continuing on to today has seen vast strides in eroding the paternalistic view of medicine and science and bolstering the right to informed consent and ethical standards for research.

[gamerunknown]

Governments are always going to be doing morally dubious things in the name of protecting their citizens, for instance.

How on earth did Operation Gladio protect US citizens? Perhaps their investments or the growing tide of... I don't know, democratic sentiment, but certainly not actual US citizens...

[muldoonthief]

But the Church is supposedly the expression of Jesus Christ on earth. It exists only for the purpose of being a positive moral force in the world. If it is involved in great and widespread evil, then it undermines its very reason for being.


Yeah, that's the point that the apologists never seem to get. The ones who say ridiculous stuff like "If you look at the statistics, catholic priests rape young boys with the same frequency as the population as a whole! So they aren't more evil than anyone else!"

[gamerunknown]

"If you look at the statistics, catholic priests rape young boys with the same frequency as the population as a whole! So they aren't more evil than anyone else!"

Wasn't that just Father Ted speaking to Sinead O'Connor?

[RTFirefly]

How on earth did Operation Gladio protect US citizens? Perhaps their investments or the growing tide of... I don't know, democratic sentiment, but certainly not actual US citizens...I don't believe I said it did. I was just trying to say what I'd expect of the relationship between governmental behavior and moral behavior, compared to what I'd expect of the relationship between the behavior of a specifically Christian organization and moral behavior.

[Strassia]

Yeah, that's the point that the apologists never seem to get. The ones who say ridiculous stuff like "If you look at the statistics, catholic priests rape young boys with the same frequency as the population as a whole! So they aren't more evil than anyone else!"

I hate it when people seriously bring up this red herring. Even if Catholic priests committed child abuse at 1/2 the rate of the general population there would still be a problem because the organization covered it up and let it continue.

The Church is not necessarily responsible for the first kid each priest abused. It is definitely responsible for each kid that was abused after they found out and chose to protect and keep that priest in a position with access to children instead of turning them over to the police.

[RTFirefly]

I hate it when people seriously bring up this red herring. Even if Catholic priests committed child abuse at 1/2 the rate of the general population there would still be a problem because the organization covered it up and let it continue.

The Church is not necessarily responsible for the first kid each priest abused. It is definitely responsible for each kid that was abused after they found out and chose to protect and keep that priest in a position with access to children instead of turning them over to the police.Damned straight.

And to this day, they are responsible for continuing to protect the bishops and cardinals who protected those priests and moved them around to cover their tracks. They've been willing to turn a certain number of molesting priests over to the wolves, but they've been considerably less forthcoming about the higher-ups. Cardinal Law, one of those higher-ups in question, was even given a sweet sinecure in the Vatican, safe from U.S. prosecutors.

[Beware of Doug]

What is it about the 1950s that made people such fucking assholes?Seriously? I think WW2 taught people everywhere organizational discipline to a degree never seen before. More people than ever learned how to function first and foremost as parts of an organization, and to put their own morality second or last.

It was not a new skill, of course (see: Industrial Revolution), but it had saved the world (ironically enough, from very well organized opposition).

[gamerunknown]

More people than ever learned how to function first and foremost as parts of an organization, and to put their own morality second or last.

mmm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE)...

[sisu]

Hardly; it's that they don't care or in denial about it. The Church is Good, it must be Good, and no facts that contradict that Goodness are permissible or thinkable. The same thing that let the Church get away with what it did for so very long. If it comes down to a choice between the welfare of their child and the reputation of the Church, any good believer will sacrifice their child. And that's exactly what parent after parent did.

This is an ignorant statement at best and at worst fucking stupid. I choose to send my kids to a catholic school because it is a better school with good parish support. The child in [this case mine] is the centre of the decision and if there was a chance of harm any greater than in the secular school system I would not send them there.

I am at heart an agnostic cultural Catholic as the majority of us who attend Mass are and really we don't always listen to the hierarchy.

Remember the catholic church is a wide church with many strains of thinking, we are not a fundamental American Bible Bashing Cult that demands everyone thinks the same. Of course the church is not 100% good, it is after all a bunch of humans with all the failings that come with that.

I cannot and will not defend the assholes who molested children or covered it up, they deserve the full weight of the law and eternal condemnation from all us (although I am against the death penalty child molesters make me rethink this). I will always fight for uncovering the people behind this and have. But to paint all that are members of the church as complicit is just fucking stupid.

Am I to say that ALL Americans are fuckwits because they invaded Granada or that US government knowingly allowed people to get experimented on?

[Der Trihs]

This is an ignorant statement at best and at worst fucking stupid. I choose to send my kids to a catholic school because it is a better school with good parish support. The child in [this case mine] is the centre of the decision and if there was a chance of harm any greater than in the secular school system I would not send them there.Except of course I'm sure that that's exactly what all the other parents whose children got molested generally said.


Remember the catholic church is a wide church with many strains of thinking, we are not a fundamental American Bible Bashing Cult that demands everyone thinks the same.And what difference does that make? The Church has acted as a unified whole when it comes to shielding child molesters.

Am I to say that ALL Americans are fuckwits because they invaded Granada or that US government knowingly allowed people to get experimented on?As has already been repeatedly pointed out, for multiple reasons the analogy between governments and the Church doesn't work.

[sisu]

Except of course I'm sure that that's exactly what all the other parents whose children got molested generally said.

You could say the same of state sponsored child abuse such as happened all over the world. It is when the populous decides not to question and involve themselves that issues such as child abuse etc happens. In today's world [in Aus at least] we as parents and members of the community are heavily involved in the day to day running of the parish. In the past it was the priest today it is the members. This is a fundamental change and as such I have no qualms in sending my kids to a catholic school or allowing them to be members of scouts, or be coached on a basketball team.

And what difference does that make? The Church has acted as a unified whole when it comes to shielding child molesters.

It makes a huge difference, when people attack the anyone who is a member then it becomes personal. Yes the hierarchy of the church that covered this up and allowed it to happen should hung drawn and quartered.

As has already been repeatedly pointed out, for multiple reasons the analogy between governments and the Church doesn't work.

Still not convinced of this argument.

I don't accept that the government is some entity that exists beyond moral judgement. It is a representation of the people and as such should be held accountable when it does something wrong as well.

How can we say the government shouldn't act morally when the very law that they are based on is at heart moral?


I am not an apologist for the church, never have been and never will be but do not condemn my choices and those of others to still be involved in it.

[Strassia]

You could say the same of state sponsored child abuse such as happened all over the world. It is when the populous decides not to question and involve themselves that issues such as child abuse etc happens. In today's world [in Aus at least] we as parents and members of the community are heavily involved in the day to day running of the parish. In the past it was the priest today it is the members. This is a fundamental change and as such I have no qualms in sending my kids to a catholic school or allowing them to be members of scouts, or be coached on a basketball team.



It makes a huge difference, when people attack the anyone who is a member then it becomes personal. Yes the hierarchy of the church that covered this up and allowed it to happen should hung drawn and quartered.
And yet part of the fees you pay to your school go to support that hierarchy, even if it just to support the local priest. That is the point that is being made. If I found out the pre-school I send my kids to was run by an organization that had a history of systematically protecting and enabling child abusers, I would pull them from it even if I thought it was the best school around for two reasons: 1) I do not wish to support such an organization unless I am convinced it has changed and 2) I could not trust the organization.

Still not convinced of this argument.

I don't accept that the government is some entity that exists beyond moral judgement. It is a representation of the people and as such should be held accountable when it does something wrong as well.

How can we say the government shouldn't act morally when the very law that they are based on is at heart moral? We do not get to choose not to associate with a government, we can only work to change them. No one has to be a member of any church.


I am not an apologist for the church, never have been and never will be but do not condemn my choices and those of others to still be involved in it.

Until the laity start holding the church accountable, they will continue to deny and protect the guilty. Why would they do otherwise?

[Mighty_Girl]

It's all the homosexuals' fault.

A few years back the head of a local (Dominican) Catholic orphanage was suspected of molesting his charges. A married couple that worked for the orphanage (I am not sure if both did) decided to blackmail the pedophile. He decided to do what any decent person would do: he killed them, dismembered them and put them in a metal drum which he disposed of in a remote area.

When the whole thing came out our "dear" local cardinal blamed it all on the homos.

I am an atheist, but I could have remained on friendly terms with the church, unfortunately it has given me no reason to have any respect for the church in which I was born, raised and educated into.

[sisu]

Well this is where pragmatism beats idealism. I look at what value for money for money I get and what school will best support my children, academically and sporting wise. It is the same argument I use when i purchase an iPhone but on a larger scale.

And I do think that the church has changed enough? No, not enough at this stage. But I do still think that it is a safe environment for my kids.

The laity is holding the church accountable, there are many groups who have left in protest and many who are trying to change it from the inside and then there are some who really don't give a toss and stumble through life with black tape over their eyes.

Of course you get to choose not to associate with a government, leave the USA and move somewhere else and don't say you can't, of course you can. OH would that mean leaving your roots, your family, your culture etc?

I get the arguments and totally understand your perspective, heck I even respect it but for me I make my choices and I can sleep at might with them.

[Strassia]

Well this is where pragmatism beats idealism. I look at what value for money for money I get and what school will best support my children, academically and sporting wise. It is the same argument I use when i purchase an iPhone but on a larger scale.

And I do think that the church has changed enough? No, not enough at this stage. But I do still think that it is a safe environment for my kids.

The laity is holding the church accountable, there are many groups who have left in protest and many who are trying to change it from the inside and then there are some who really don't give a toss and stumble through life with black tape over their eyes.

Of course you get to choose not to associate with a government, leave the USA and move somewhere else and don't say you can't, of course you can. OH would that mean leaving your roots, your family, your culture etc?

I get the arguments and totally understand your perspective, heck I even respect it but for me I make my choices and I can sleep at might with them.
I suppose I could move to Somalia, but where else can I go without a government? Sure, I could move to a country with a government, but tell me which one is morally pure? It isn't yours, it isn't mine, but I would say that both of them are much more accountable than the Catholic Church.

[sisu]

I suppose I could move to Somalia, but where else can I go without a government? Sure, I could move to a country with a government, but tell me which one is morally pure? It isn't yours, it isn't mine, but I would say that both of them are much more accountable than the Catholic Church.


Well any group of humans is going to form some kind of organisational control, it is in a our nature. So government is inevitable when a group of humans get together.

Is the church accountable for it's sins? Yep sure is to the highest power there is, God but this does not solve the earthly issues. All priests and those responsible for the cover up should be pursued by the governmental police powers to full extant of the law. Please do not expect any organisation to perform a witch hunt on it's own members, none have so far and see no reason for this to change. People should be lobbying government to pursue the evil doers as they are meant to do.

I don't see government handing over wrong doers to the courts very often, do you?

[tagos]

Well any group of humans is going to form some kind of organisational control, it is in a our nature. So government is inevitable when a group of humans get together.

Is the church accountable for it's sins? Yep sure is to the highest power there is, God but this does not solve the earthly issues. All priests and those responsible for the cover up should be pursued by the governmental police powers to full extant of the law. Please do not expect any organisation to perform a witch hunt on it's own members, none have so far and see no reason for this to change. People should be lobbying government to pursue the evil doers as they are meant to do.

I don't see government handing over wrong doers to the courts very often, do you?

You bet you socks I expect an organisation that claims to be what the RCC claims to be to stop at absolutely nothing to root out and punish wrong doers in its midst. Instead, the entire organisation, from top to bottom including the current pope in a previous capacity, actively conspired to pervert the course of justice across the world.

In a just world the RCC would be treated for what it is - a massive conspiracy against humanity - broken up and any in a position of authority who had not done their utmost (regardless of church regs and self-serving mumbo-jumbo) to ensure malefactors were punished should go to jail.

I would favour an interntional court for crimes against humanity where they take their place in a court next to bankers.

[WhyNot]

Question: Why do people assume that a Church which places so much emphasis on confession, repentance and absolution would "root out" and punish child molesters? Seems rather contrary to their raison d'être, actually. They are there to provide a path to forgiveness and sanctuary, not punishment. So why are we surprised when they forgive child molesting clergy and help them avoid punishment?

The Church doesn't claim to be made up of good people. On the contrary, they claim to be made up of sinners.

Sometimes, when people tell you who they are, you should believe them.

[Blake]

Question: Why do people assume that a Church which places so much emphasis on confession, repentance and absolution would "root out" and punish child molesters?

Because the church also claims to be Christian. The Bible is very explicit about how to handle both one's own sins, and other Christians who were repetitive sinners. That involves the sinner obtaining forgiveness from their victims before they can approach the altar, something that none of these priests did, yet they were allowed to act as priests. It also involves publicly naming and chastising any repeat offenders. In the entire history of the Church not a single priest has been publicly chastised for such an event until it became public knowledge through other routes. Exactly the opposite occurred: the offence was shielded from public knowledge in every way possible and held up as a paragons of virtue and given great authority.

Because the church holds itself up as an arbiter of moral standards, which is why it constantly speaks on issues of morality. It teaches that priests are representatives of God and are to be obeyed. There is no overlap between a moral authority and an organisation that not only fails to disclose crimes, but actively attempts to conceal the crimes, to assist the criminals in evading lawful secular authority and places the criminals into a position in which they are able to commit such crimes again and again.

Because nothing in Catholic doctrine suggest that any Catholic, priest or layman, who discovers a crime outside the confessional should assist in covering that crime up. There is nothing about a doctrine of confession, repentance and absolution that allows, much less requires, Catholics to become complicit in sinful and criminal acts.

Because the forgiveness of a sin does not in any way involve conspiring to protect the guilty. Had the priests merely been forgiven and nothing said, that might be excusable. But when the crimes were discovered the Church brought pressure to bear on victims and the families of the victims not to press charges, to the point of threatening them with eternal hellfire for reporting the crime to the police and actually castrating them for reporting the crime. The church also went to great lengths to move criminals rapists from the reach of the law and to move them to new locations in order to stymie police investigations.

Because forgiveness, especially for crimes of violence, gross sexual misconduct and offences against the Holy Spirit been automatic under Catholic doctrine. It involves serious penanaces which often involve confession to secular authorities. Yet far from being given such penances, the priests were not even defrocked, They committed violent, sexual acts against children within the Church building itself and were forgiven with no material punishment whatsoever and were assisted in committing such crime sin future. That isn't in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

I could keep going for pages on the reasons why the Church was expected to act in this, but putting it simply your justification is utter bullshit. A doctrine of confession, repentance and absolution has no bearing at all on aiding and abetting crimes discovered outside of the confessional.

The Church doesn't claim to be made up of good people. On the contrary, they claim to be made up of sinners.

Sometimes, when people tell you who they are, you should believe them.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[WhyNot]

I could keep going for pages on the reasons why the Church was expected to act in this, but putting it simply your justification is utter bullshit.

It's not a justification at all, Blake. It's a statement that these people have been doing horrendous, odious, dreadful things for 2000 years, and I don't understand why we're surprised that they're still doing them.

Theodosius, Hypatia, The Crusades, The Inquisition, the council of Toledo, mass genocide of Jews and pagans and aboriginal peoples on multiple continents, the Magdalene sisters, Jasenovac... castration and molestation fits well into the resume.

I'm not, at all, excusing them. I think the whole organization should be torn down by an international court for crimes against humanity. But I'm just not surprised, nor do I understand how anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of the Church can be surprised.

[Autolycus]

I'm not, at all, excusing them. I think the whole organization should be torn down by an international court for crimes against humanity. But I'm just not surprised, nor do I understand how anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of the Church can be surprised.

Maybe I'm just blinded by my Catholic upbringing, but for me this statement is where the Anti-Catholic train goes off the outrage tracks.

Resolved:

1) The Catholic Church has committed untold horrors.

2) The overarching sex scandal is a particularly atrocious series of acts.

3) All those responsible or complicit, from the Pope down, should be held responsible and brought to justice. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Mercy and Justice are flip sides of the same coin.

Not Resolved:

1) The entire membership of the Catholic Church is evil and the entire Catholic Church should be dismantled.

With good reason, people latch onto this series of evil acts and forget that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. That does not excuse these crimes. IMO, What that does is show the Catholic Church en toto is not an evil organization. It is an organization that does evil things. Snerk if you must, but there's a difference. The evils should be purged, and the Church should be reformed. That is different from abolishing the Church and wishing it had never existed.

Re-stating the above,I am convinced the average Catholic priest is a force for good in this world. At the very least your every-day priest is not complicit in any way but monetarily or... organizationally? And, Even if his monetary contributions indirectly fuel this evil,.. so? Should I stop being American because my tax dollars went to several unjust wars? I could renounce my citizenship and move somewhere else. It would be difficult, but do-able.

The church should be reformed, not abolished. Its social works and overall ideal goal of spreading love and peace on earth merit it that. Of course, one way of reforming the church is to quit in protest. But, that's a very different matter than simply declaring the Church anathema to humanity and erasing its existence by fiat.

FTR, I am an atheist ex-Catholic.

[WhyNot]

If these were isolated incidents, or the cover ups were committed only by low level priests, I might agree. But this is so high up in the food chain, I think it's irredeemably flawed. When the Pope himself is part of the problem, I just don't know where to go within the organization to fix things. There's no chain of command left (on the earthly plane, anyhow.)

But...sure. I am a compassionate woman. I am actually quite fond of several priests I know personally, and there certainly are some godly Catholics. So, how about we give them some time to get their house in order and prove to us that they, as an organization and as individuals, are committed to rooting out corruption and illegal activity? Give them some time, and if they don't take care of the problem, I think someone else needs to.

How much time do you think we should give them? I think the clock is running out. I think hundreds of years is a lot of time to have given them.

[Blake]

Theodosius, Hypatia, The Crusades, The Inquisition, the council of Toledo, mass genocide of Jews and pagans and aboriginal peoples on multiple continents..

Secular organisations; military, police, government; also did all those things. But they did them openly, and they stopped. At some point in history people stopped believing that such actions were excusable and demanded change, and they got it. By the late 20th century secular organisations in the developed world had stopped doing these horrific things.


..the Magdalene sisters, Jasenovac... castration and molestation fits well into the resume.

What horrifies people is that the thing happened in the 1980s.

In a world where pretty much everyone in society had grown up agreeing that mutilation and rape and slavery and genocide were wrong... the church was not only still doing those horrific things, but was actively conspiring to hide them because they knew the public would horrified if they found out.

That's the difference. It isn't that bad things happened in the past and were justified. It is that bad things happened yesterday, and the people doing them knew that they were horrific and evil and, instead of stopping, they sort to cover up their evil acts. And they covered it up while holding themselves up as the arbiters of morality.

I'm not, at all, excusing them. I think the whole organization should be torn down by an international court for crimes against humanity.

We agree there.

But I'm just not surprised, nor do I understand how anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of the Church can be surprised.

So you wouldn't be shocked to discover tomorrow that the US government currently holds thousands of Black people in slavery, and that any senator or congressman can go down the fields and rape any slave they want whenever they want?

Because anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of the US government would know that they did such things in the past.

Nonetheless you would be shocked to discover this was happening right now because you have reason to believe that it was done the past when it was done openly and with social approval. To discover that it was still being done today, with great efforts to maintain secrecy and with full knowledge that the 99% of people would be horrified.

That is a whole other sort of horror.

[RTFirefly]

Question: Why do people assume that a Church which places so much emphasis on confession, repentance and absolution would "root out" and punish child molesters? Seems rather contrary to their raison d'être, actually. They are there to provide a path to forgiveness and sanctuary, not punishment. So why are we surprised when they forgive child molesting clergy and help them avoid punishment?

The Church doesn't claim to be made up of good people. On the contrary, they claim to be made up of sinners.

Sometimes, when people tell you who they are, you should believe them.Sigh.

Since I've been saying this at least since the days of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, if not since some even earlier church scandal, my mind is already going Zzzzzz.... at the thought of having to type this out yet one more time.

Part of repentance is accepting that there may be a price to be paid for your actions, and coming to terms with the need to pay a legitimate price. Someone who's committed the sorts of sins that require a position of power or trust can and should be welcomed back to the flock after their repentance, but part of that price is they don't get to continue as or be restored to their positions as shepherds.

If the sinner has committed deeds that are crimes under the secular law, then unless the church takes the position that classifying those deeds as crimes is a grave injustice, the sinner must be turned over to the secular authorities to pay that portion of the price, and the church must cooperate with those authorities in sharing what information it has on the alleged crimes.

I'd think this would be pretty basic stuff. But apparently it's not.

ETA: OK, I've read your further posts, but I'd say that it's the history of the RCC, not any emphasis on confession, repentance, and absolution, that makes its current behavior predictable.

[Maastricht]

So, how about we give them some time to get their house in order and prove to us that they, as an organization and as individuals, are committed to rooting out corruption and illegal activity? Give them some time, and if they don't take care of the problem, I think someone else needs to.

How much time do you think we should give them? I think the clock is running out. I think hundreds of years is a lot of time to have given them.This is actually an interesting take on the problem. How did the CC deal with the last major scandal that wouldn't go away, the corruption in simony and indulgences in 1600 ? Two words: schism and protestantism (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation).

The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.

[WhyNot]

So you wouldn't be shocked to discover tomorrow that the US government currently holds thousands of Black people in slavery, and that any senator or congressman can go down the fields and rape any slave they want whenever they want?


I would be shocked by that, because they, as far as I know, stopped doing it 150 years ago.

I don't see any evidence that the Catholic Church ever took a reprieve from doing horrific things, so it doesn't surprise me that they're still doing horrific things.

[Blake]

Resolved:

1) The National Socialist Party has committed untold horrors.

2) All those responsible or complicit, from the Fuhrer down, should be held responsible and brought to justice. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Mercy and Justice are flip sides of the same coin.

Not Resolved:

1) The entire membership of the Nazi Party is evil and the entire Nazi Party should be dismantled.

With good reason, people latch onto this series of evil acts and forget that the Nazi Party is the largest is the largest charitable organization in the world. That does not excuse these crimes. IMO, What that does is show the Nazi Party en toto is not an evil organization. It is an organization that does evil things. Snerk if you must, but there's a difference. The evils should be purged, and the Party should be reformed. That is different from abolishing the Party and wishing it had never existed.


Utter bullshit in my not so humble opinion.

When an organisation commits evil acts, acts that it knows to be so evil that it has to hide them from the rest of society. When that organisation covers up those acts and fights tooth and nail against compensating victims. When it refuses hand over for prosecution members that it knows are guilty of heinous crimes. When it threatens witnesses to these crimes with years of torture if the come forward. When it kills victims of these crimes and literally buries the bodies in the cellar and makes no effort to identify the killers or those who buried the corpses. When it castrates victims iof these crimes as punishment for coming forward. When this evil is indulged in and/or abetted by members of the heirachy from the laity to the Pop himself.

When an organisation is so knowingly, premeditaively evil, so bankrupt, so cruel and utterly unrepentant that it can behave in that way.

When an organisation reaches that level, then anyone who gives money to it is evil. Anyone who legitimises that organisation by literally bowing to the authority of the organistion. Those people are evil. These people are legitimising and funding an organistaion that they know is going to use that legitimacy and that money to place more men and women into a position where they can rape little children.

This idea that someone can give money to a terrorist organisation and sends them letters telling them how wonderful they are and then say "Oh I don't know what they do with the money." That is bullshit of the highest degree. The person who funds the evil organisation is evil. The person who tells it that it is doing a good job, is evil. I don't give a fuck if the IRA ran soup kitchens or if Al Queda operates an orphan's and widow's fund shelter. I don't give a shit that the Nazi party ran animal shelters. It is utterly irrelevant if the Catholic Church operates charities. The organisation is evil, is utterly unrepentant about past evil acts, is protecting the evildoers right now and is committing evil acts right now.

Anyone who gives them money, comfort and legitimacy is funding, aiding and legitimising their evil. If their were no alternative charities that people could give money to your argument might have just a shred of credibility. But in the world as it is, it is lilly-livered, rationalising horseshit from top to bottom

Should I stop being American because my tax dollars went to several unjust wars? I could renounce my citizenship and move somewhere else. It would be difficult, but do-able.

This has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread alone.

Where are you going to go that is not just as bad? There are a million churches that are demonstrably less evil than the RCC.

You need some form of government, so you have to make a choice to go with the best one. You don't need a church at all, and there is certainly no justification in going with what appears to be the worst one.

It takes a great effort and great hardship to move to another country. It take sno effort and no hardship not to give money to an organisation that you know will use that money to fund evil acts against children.

There is simply no legitimacy in comparing government to religion.

The Nazi Party should be reformed, not abolished. Its social works and overall ideal goal of spreading enlightenment and peace on earth merit it that. Of course, one way of reforming the Party is to quit in protest. But, that's a very different matter than simply declaring the Party anathema to humanity and erasing its existence by fiat.

:dubious:

[Blake]

I would be shocked by that, because they, as far as I know, stopped doing it 150 years ago.

I don't see any evidence that the Catholic Church ever took a reprieve from doing horrific things, so it doesn't surprise me that they're still doing horrific things.

Most people believed that the Church stopped doing evil things a long time ago too, with some justification.

As with any other organisation there were individual scandals, but no evidence that organised rape, murder and mutilation was being both practiced and condoned while being publicly disavowed.

[RTFirefly]

Maybe I'm just blinded by my Catholic upbringing, but for me this statement is where the Anti-Catholic train goes off the outrage tracks.

Resolved:

1) The Catholic Church has committed untold horrors.

2) The overarching sex scandal is a particularly atrocious series of acts.

3) All those responsible or complicit, from the Pope down, should be held responsible and brought to justice. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Mercy and Justice are flip sides of the same coin. I'm with you so far.

Not Resolved:

1) The entire membership of the Catholic Church is evilStill with you. and the entire Catholic Church should be dismantled.I would argue that the Catholic Church should indeed be dismantled - that with the exception of each local church building and the property it sits on, everything owned by the church as an organization (as distinct from anything actually held in the name of the local congregation) should be sold off, the proceeds distributed to those of its victims who are still alive, and their records preserved and opened to the public so that there would be no barriers to prosecuting or suing those that have it coming.

Then the actual Church laity would be in a position to re-make the Church in whatever fashion they so chose. As things stand, of course, the laity lack authority or even high-level input into the decisions the RCC makes on their behalf. You're just passengers on a ship that's fully owned and operated by a self-perpetuating hierarchy that shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand. I'm sure that the people who still feel a sense of attachment and loyalty to the Catholic Church could easily come up with a far better organizational structure.

[Autolycus]

I do not give money to the Catholic Church anymore, so it is a good thing I am not utterly evil. At least I'd be in good company, what with 1/6 of the entire world. Of course, I guess it's possible for that much of the world to be irredeemably evil.

More responses to come later. I have better things to do on a Friday night than to wipe spittle off my glasses.

[Blake]

At least I'd be in good company, what with 1/6 of the entire world.

Ahhh, an argument from popularity.

It can't be wrong, everybody does it.

Of course, I guess it's possible for that much of the world to be irredeemably evil.

I don't think anyone ever used the word irredeemable.

But it wasn''t many centuries ago that 2/3 of the world's population engaged in slavery.

What does that tell us?

Oh that's right. It tells us that slavery is a good thing and not at all evil. Because if more than 1/6 of the world's population does something, it can't be wrong.

Is anybody buying this rationalising nonsense?

[gamerunknown]

Earthly issues

Well, that's the thing. There's no equivalent to the first amendment rule in Catholicism. One can protest the political system that one contributes to and still remain a member of it. In fact, political systems that allow for dissent from the party lines are the only ones worth joining. In Catholicism, expulsion is threatened for anyone that dares question the authority of the Church.

As for the Godwinning: the Nazi party advocates essentially the opposite of charity. Namely, that those that do not have the qualities to succeed do not deserve to succeed. Appropriately, they were supported in that by the Catholic Church in Concordat in exchange for the Reich making concessions to faith schools.

There are other incongruities: Hamas has legitimate functions as a charitable organisation, but nationalism is presumably their primary objective. The US officially espouses an individualistic culture, tying for lifespan with Cuba, yet tops international lists of (personal) charitable aid and volunteer work.

[Autolycus]

Ahhh, an argument from popularity. . . .

What does that tell us?

Oh that's right. It tells us that slavery is a good thing and not at all evil. Because if more than 1/6 of the world's population does something, it can't be wrong.

Actually, no, I was merely making a remark on the fact that you seem to have no second thoughts with calling one billion people on the earth evil. Not that their actions are evil, or that they belong to an evil organization, but that those people are all in essence evil. Still, I can see how my writing would make you think that though. It's my bad for writing such ambiguous bullshit nonsense. With that said, let's not distract from the main issue too much. Moving on.

I am not as skilled a writer as you, so I shall break this down piece by piece.

Resolved:

1) The National Socialist Party has committed untold horrors.

Pause. At first I thought this was one of the worst Godwins in the history of the board, but, then I realized. It's not Godwinning if you are actually comparing the Catholic Church to the Nazi party. This you seem to be doing with great zeal. Needless to say, I disagree that the Catholic Church is as evil as the Nazis, but you're entitled to your opinion, and, in any case, this is fuel enough for another thread. Carry on.



When an organisation commits evil acts, acts that it knows to be so evil that it has to hide them from the rest of society. . . When this evil is indulged in and/or abetted by members of the heirachy from the laity to the Pop himself.

When an organisation is so knowingly, premeditaively evil, so bankrupt, so cruel and utterly unrepentant that it can behave in that way.

When an organisation reaches that level, then anyone who gives money to it is evil.

I think this is a good argument, just taken too far. I just can't see how giving money to a school bake school at a local Catholic ES makes somebody evil. Not just committing an unknowingly evil-act evil, but becoming evil people, like, goatee-wearing identical twin evil. I actually agree with the main thrust of your argument though. Unless absolutely guaranteed that the money will go to purely charitable purposes, or to local purposes where one can be certain there are no diddling priests, then certainly one should not give money to the Catholic Church, as that would indeed be abetting evil behavior. Like I said, I don't give money to the church anymore.

The person who funds the evil organisation is evil. The person who tells it that it is doing a good job, is evil.

Yes, yes. Luckily again for me, I am not advocating either of these.

I don't give a fuck if the IRA ran soup kitchens or if Al Queda operates an orphan's and widow's fund shelter. I don't give a shit that the Nazi party ran animal shelters. It is utterly irrelevant if the Catholic Church operates charities.

See, I don't think it is. When the Catholic Church operates charities and does good in the world, it is upholding its central message. The Catholic Church, in theory, at least the one I was raised in, exists to spread love and mercy in the world. The Catholicism of Lewis, Chesterton, and modern-day, educated Jesuits, this religion would preach good will on earth and peace among men. Through a book cobbled together by man, the Church would preach the best of man. This is not a Church that should be summarized by murder, rape, and torture. It goes without saying that no amount of charity legitimizes or excuses the wrongs done. However, the Catholic Church is not Al Qaeda, nor is it the Nazi Party, no matter how eloquently you write it so.

This has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread alone.

Where are you going to go that is not just as bad? There are a million churches that are demonstrably less evil than the RCC.

You raise several good points, of which I don't think I can make any valid counter-arguments. Moving on to the last point.

Is anybody buying this rationalising nonsense?

I will answer your question with a question. What exactly am I rationalizing? I am not rationalizing the Church's behavior, and I am not rationalizing anything concerning those responsible. I said earlier that I am against dismantling the entire church, but RTFirefly raised a good argument. If it was necessary, which it very well seems to be at this point, to dismantle the entire leadership and start again from scratch in order to root out the vileness of these atrocities, then it should be done post-haste. With courtesies to WhyNot, I am all for bringing in an outside party to bring those accountable to justice. So, again, what exactly am I rationalizing? If I am rationalizing anything, I am rationalizing that the Catholic Church, when kept in keeping with its central message, even if that message is cobbled together from myths and unicorns, that Church, in some form or another, has a place in this world. If holding this opinion makes me evil, then to hell with me.

[sisu]

Well we have an impasse. Some people want the entire church shut down, it ain't gunna happen.'

So that leaves us with a central question. "What do we do about it?"

Well I will continue to push for change from within, some people will leave etc. The Church as it's central core is a pure message and if we can somehow move closer to that the world will be better.

[Boyo Jim]

Well we have an impasse. Some people want the entire church shut down, it ain't gunna happen.'

So that leaves us with a central question. "What do we do about it?"

Well I will continue to push for change from within, some people will leave etc. The Church as it's central core is a pure message and if we can somehow move closer to that the world will be better.

Seriously, how do you push for change from within? Are you a priest? Do you write letters to the Pope? Or what exactly?

[mister nyx]

the 1960's and continuing on to today has seen vast strides in eroding the paternalistic view of medicine and science and bolstering the right to informed consent and ethical standards for research.
Not really a relevant observation in this case, as through most of history the medical system had no authority to engage in acts like this. Doctors didn't act with the power of the state at their backs back in the 19th century.

[sisu]

Seriously, how do you push for change from within? Are you a priest? Do you write letters to the Pope? Or what exactly?

Nup not a priest. Change can come from within, it has in the past and will again.

Ensure that working with children policies are in place.
Vigilance on priest placements.
Involvement in my kids life.
Lots of things like that.

By doing this we make it hard for any pedophiles to practice. Whilst this does not resolve the issues of the past it does allow us to move forward and look to the future without abandoning our christian path and 1,600 years of cultural history.

The Catholic Church members who hid and allowed kids to get molested do need to be brought to justice and the full weight of the law should be applied to these monsters who have once again perverted the message of JC.

The Church will exist long after you and I are worm food, so again the question is what do we do?

[The Second Stone]

Wait a minute. Isn't that particular church against any form of birth control other than abstinences and rhythm method?

Are you saying they are hypocrites? Because I think you have them dead to rights if that is where you're going. Otherwise it is just an interesting observation. CUT OFF HIS FOOKIN' BALLS!!!

[gamerunknown]

Involvement in my kids life.

That's hardly fair, if you watch the documentary: Deliver Us From Evil, the parents of the children involved in child sex abuse were very supportive of the children, but the children were too ashamed or scared (for their parent's sake) to reveal the truth to their parents. Seems like a second level "blaming the victim".

[sisu]

That's hardly fair, if you watch the documentary: Deliver Us From Evil, the parents of the children involved in child sex abuse were very supportive of the children, but the children were too ashamed or scared (for their parent's sake) to reveal the truth to their parents. Seems like a second level "blaming the victim".

Sorry don't buy it, are you telling me that a parent can't spot when a kid is being abused? I call bull...

[gamerunknown]

Sorry don't buy it, are you telling me that a parent can't spot when a kid is being abused? I call bull...

You honestly think they're either complicit in it or completely ignorant of their children? The children involved in the documentary did their best to shield their parents from the facts and one of the parents in the documentary shook with rage and grief just remembering their own impotence. My father was in the seminary with a guy that worked on the Murphy report and he came over for dinner one night. Not once did he suggest that the parents of victims were in on the abuse. It's blaming the victim by proxy.

[sisu]

AS adults in an environment that has kids mixing with adults then yes we need to be vigilante and ensure that situations don't arise.

[sisu]

You honestly think they're either complicit in it or completely ignorant of their children? The children involved in the documentary did their best to shield their parents from the facts and one of the parents in the documentary shook with rage and grief just remembering their own impotence. My father was in the seminary with a guy that worked on the Murphy report and he came over for dinner one night. Not once did he suggest that the parents of victims were in on the abuse. It's blaming the victim by proxy.

Bull it's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility as a parent. The signs are there, it is up to us who choose to become parents to learn what these are. It is something that I have done and everyone I know has. If someone chooses not to then they are shirking responsibility.

This is not to dilute what the abusers have done but I have seen too many stories where the parents and sometimes partners in parental abuse have chosen to live with their heads in the sand.

My point is simple, stay involved in your kid's life and you will most probably stop any abuse before it occurs.

[Voyager]

Bull it's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility as a parent. The signs are there, it is up to us who choose to become parents to learn what these are. It is something that I have done and everyone I know has. If someone chooses not to then they are shirking responsibility.

This is not to dilute what the abusers have done but I have seen too many stories where the parents and sometimes partners in parental abuse have chosen to live with their heads in the sand.

My point is simple, stay involved in your kid's life and you will most probably stop any abuse before it occurs.

Except that parents are sometimes in denial, and kids are too. Especially when the abuser is someone who you've been raised to respect as a representative of God on earth. It is far easier to believe that the child is going through a phase than that the kindly Father Jones, who is so good with the parish kids, is actually a rapist.

Same thing happens when the abuser is a relative.

[Voyager]

Seriously, how do you push for change from within? Are you a priest? Do you write letters to the Pope? Or what exactly?

Especially when the hierarchy has been guilty of the coverup.
What gets me is that these same people talk about the evils of gay marriage, abortion, and birth control.
The big problem is that so many people have been indoctrinated since birth to think that they'd lose something from leaving this nest of vipers.

[sisu]

Especially when the hierarchy has been guilty of the coverup.
What gets me is that these same people talk about the evils of gay marriage, abortion, and birth control.
The big problem is that so many people have been indoctrinated since birth to think that they'd lose something from leaving this nest of vipers.

If you had ever bothered to talk to the rank and file members most don't have a problem with gay marriage, abortion, and birth control. Also besides some backwards people most people don't think that priests are anything but a man who happens to know a lot about the bible.

I don't fear that I will lose something, my relationship with god is mine not the church's as it should be for all. Indoctrination is a strong word, it is not brain washing and if you argue it is then you don't know what it is.

The argument I am making is that the church will continue to exists whether you like it or not so, what do we do?

I could run away and leave them to their own devices or I could try to change from within as I think and believe that good can come from the church if it is changed. Whilst there are cover ups etc I do not feel proud of what it is but I can feel optimistic [however misguided] that the future can look good.

[gamerunknown]

Also besides some backwards people most people don't think that priests are anything but a man who happens to know a lot about the bible.

You do know that part of the Catechism of the Church to which you belong is that the priest acts "In persona Christi"? Honestly, watch the documentary and tell me anything other than the fact that the parents were completely trusting of their priests and that the children revealed nothing of the torment to them. Given your comments earlier, I have to say we're lucky neither of us has witnesses abuse firsthand, but you're very willing to say that parents are "shirking responsibility" if they're not aware their children have been raped.

[Der Trihs]

The argument I am making is that the church will continue to exists whether you like it or not so, what do we do?Watch, while it continues over and over again to cause disasters and atrocities, as is its nature. It's a major religion, so we'll continue to let it run wild.

[sisu]

Watch, while it continues over and over again to cause disasters and atrocities, as is its nature. It's a major religion, so we'll continue to let it run wild.

That's my point, if people do nothing then this evil that has infested it self will continue.

It's all well and good to say close it down and abuse wil stop, if it was that simple then I would let it happen, but its not and you know it...

[WhyNot]

Sorry don't buy it, are you telling me that a parent can't spot when a kid is being abused? I call bull...
No, you are the "bull" here. My parents had no idea I was being abused, for about 5 years. And the abuse was happening under one of their roofs. I didn't want them to know, so they didn't know. Simple as that.
Bull it's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility as a parent. The signs are there, it is up to us who choose to become parents to learn what these are. It is something that I have done and everyone I know has. If someone chooses not to then they are shirking responsibility.

This is not to dilute what the abusers have done but I have seen too many stories where the parents and sometimes partners in parental abuse have chosen to live with their heads in the sand.

My point is simple, stay involved in your kid's life and you will most probably stop any abuse before it occurs.
You are so very, very wrong and arrogant in your wrongness that it truly makes me fear for your children.

[RTFirefly]

If you had ever bothered to talk to the rank and file members most don't have a problem with gay marriage, abortion, and birth control. And with respect to birth control, that's been the case since before Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968.

That was 44 years ago. How's that effort going to change the RCC hierarchy's views on birth control? How many generations will it take?

And why should you expect to change the minds of the self-perpetuating hierarchy that controls the RCC any faster on any other issue?

The next scandal, the next abuse of power, will in all likelihood be something completely different than the current child molestation scandal. How are you going to keep that from happening, whatever it might be?

Leaving the RCC isn't without effect. If enough people leave, then the reach and influence of the RCC is curtailed, and the harm it can do is reduced. But there's really no way for the RCC laity to exercise any restraint from within over the RCC hierarchy.

[Autolycus]

Shall I take the silence on my opinions to mean that I can rest easy that nobody has stepped forward to wish me to hell, or that people are merely enjoying the easy pickings that are sisu's arguments?

I mean shit, I feel like I'd rather be called a nonsense spouting-dingleberry elephant-anus than spend 30 minutes on some retarded internet argument only to be ignored like so many red-headed stepchilds.

[Boyo Jim]

Nup not a priest. Change can come from within, it has in the past and will again.

Ensure that working with children policies are in place.
Vigilance on priest placements.
Involvement in my kids life.
Lots of things like that.

By doing this we make it hard for any pedophiles to practice. Whilst this does not resolve the issues of the past it does allow us to move forward and look to the future without abandoning our christian path and 1,600 years of cultural history.

The Catholic Church members who hid and allowed kids to get molested do need to be brought to justice and the full weight of the law should be applied to these monsters who have once again perverted the message of JC.

The Church will exist long after you and I are worm food, so again the question is what do we do?

You didn't answer my question. What are you doing within the church to push for reforms from within -- not what you think the Church is doing (or should do)?

Are you in some committee that meets with Church officials to review or propose rules regarding policies about children?

How do you maintain vigilance of priest placement?

Im' glad to hear that you are involved in your children's lives, which means that if they are abused and tell you about it, you can make a complaint.

You said you would be pushing for change from within, and it's become "we" -- as in "the Church". Which is it?

[Saint Cad]

How about castrating people with mild retardation in state-sponsored hospitals so they wouldn't breed. Nope, not Nazi Germany. How about the US up to 1981 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZFBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6596,4132204). At least Sweden stopped their program in the 70s.

[gamerunknown]

Two wrongs fallacy.

[RTFirefly]

How about castrating people with mild retardation in state-sponsored hospitals so they wouldn't breed. Nope, not Nazi Germany. How about the US up to 1981 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZFBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6596,4132204). At least Sweden stopped their program in the 70s.Was this in rebuttal to something specific?

[Saint Cad]

Was this in rebuttal to something specific?

Just pointing out that involuntary castration for <fill in reason here> was an accepted practice worldwide until the 1970s

[Kimstu]

You do know that part of the Catechism of the Church to which you belong is that the priest acts "In persona Christi"?

But that applies only to the actual administering of sacramental rites. It doesn't mean that Catholics are expected to believe that everything a priest does is somehow sanctified "in persona Christi".

I agree that many lay Catholics probably err in being too deferential to the moral authority of priests as some kind of infallible mouthpiece of God in ordinary matters, but to be fair, it is not official Catholic doctrine that is responsible for this misunderstanding.


Related readings: Cecil's column on the bad popes (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/432/was-there-once-a-female-pope), in which he points out the difference between an individual pope's personal state of sin and the nonetheless-sanctified status of such a pope's acts in his official sacramental capacity.

[gamerunknown]

I agree that many lay Catholics probably err in being too deferential to the moral authority of priests as some kind of infallible mouthpiece of God in ordinary matters, but to be fair, it is not official Catholic doctrine that is responsible for this misunderstanding.

That wasn't my point. Sisu was claiming that nobody really believes the priests are anything other than people that know the Bible well, but it's an article of faith that they are a conduit for God on Earth at least a few times a week.

[Voyager]

If you had ever bothered to talk to the rank and file members most don't have a problem with gay marriage, abortion, and birth control. Also besides some backwards people most people don't think that priests are anything but a man who happens to know a lot about the bible.

Good thing then that I didn't criticize Catholics in general. There are the bishops who treat birth control as an anathema, and then there are the 90% of Catholics who use it. Though I doubt the percentage who support abortion rights is that high, at least until they need one, of course.
Since churchgoers don't get to vote for their bishops, I can't say that they should throw the bums out. If they oppose the cover up, they can vote with their feet or their pocketbooks.

I don't fear that I will lose something, my relationship with god is mine not the church's as it should be for all. Indoctrination is a strong word, it is not brain washing and if you argue it is then you don't know what it is.

I guess you disagree with the Jesuits then:
"Give me the child for the first 7 years, and I will give you the man"
If you think you have a direct relationship with God, good for you, but you don't need to filter it through a corrupt hierarchy, do you?

The argument I am making is that the church will continue to exists whether you like it or not so, what do we do?
Do what is happening in Europe - ignore them. Last report I heard there was a tremendous shortage of new nuns. Let them outsource everything to Africa where they still seem to care. No need to do a Henry VIII on their asses, just let them die a natural death as more and more people see the absurdity of their positions.

I could run away and leave them to their own devices or I could try to change from within as I think and believe that good can come from the church if it is changed. Whilst there are cover ups etc I do not feel proud of what it is but I can feel optimistic [however misguided] that the future can look good.
So, how did that work for Luther? The old guard ignores reformers at best and tells them to be quiet or be expelled at worst. (Since they can't burn anyone on the stake anymore.)
What Catholics seem to do is to support the hierarchy with their dollars while ignoring their teaching. Which would be fine except for the large number who vote the way the hierarchy tells them to. Remember how some bishops said that Kerry couldn't get communion (I think) because he supported abortion rights for others.
I'm sure the Pope believes in the Golden Rule - if a region of the country refused to support the Church financially while a bishop who supported the cover up was in office, he'd be off to a cushy job at the Vatican in no time.

[Kimstu]

Sisu was claiming that nobody really believes the priests are anything other than people that know the Bible well, but it's an article of faith that they are a conduit for God on Earth at least a few times a week.

But the two are not necessarily mutually contradictory. According to Catholic doctrine, the very limited and circumscribed sacramental role of the priest as "a conduit for God on Earth" does not in fact make him anything more than "a guy that knows the Bible well" whenever he's not administering the sacraments.

I agree with you that many lay Catholics probably let veneration of the sacramental office of the priest slop over into excessive moral deference toward the priest in ordinary life, and ISTM that sisu probably underestimates the number of Catholics who get mixed up in this way.

I'm just pointing out that official Catholic doctrine does not support, much less require, this conflation of "priest acting in persona Christi" with "priest as general moral authority and/or official Good Person". A priest is not automatically a good or wise person merely by virtue of his consecrated status as a sacramental officiant (any more than a communion wafer is automatically a health food by virtue of its consecrated status as the Body of Christ), and the church does not claim that he is entitled to any superior moral status because of it.

[Voyager]

That's my point, if people do nothing then this evil that has infested it self will continue.

It's all well and good to say close it down and abuse wil stop, if it was that simple then I would let it happen, but its not and you know it...

Abuse will happen. Around here some teachers and coaches have been accused of abuse.
The difference is that the civil authorities reported it immediately, got the person away from the kids, and made no effort to transfer him someplace else for another shot at new kids. And turning from signing the transfer papers to writing a sermon about how evil birth control and abortion is.
As for you, if you can't prevent it (and you can't) then you shouldn't support it.

[gamerunknown]

That argument doesn't hold up given the extra requirements placed on priests in order to perform that role. One particularly pertinent one is clerical celibacy: a priest cannot perform their sacramental duties if they have committed adultery, unless they have made the appropriate penance and demonstrated contrition. Raping children wholly contravenes that.

Would it be fair to say that most parishioners expect their priests to adhere to the rules they swore to uphold when taking the responsibility of priesthood in order to perform the sacraments?

That said, according to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_persona_Christi), there is an "indelible character... constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders". So luckily the sacrament is still valid even if the priest was contravening their duties, else they could have damned anyone in the congregation to hell should they die without the Eucharist or proper Last Rites.

[Voyager]

I'm just pointing out that official Catholic doctrine does not support, much less require, this conflation of "priest acting in persona Christi" with "priest as general moral authority and/or official Good Person". A priest is not automatically a good or wise person merely by virtue of his consecrated status as a sacramental officiant (any more than a communion wafer is automatically a health food by virtue of its consecrated status as the Body of Christ), and the church does not claim that he is entitled to any superior moral status because of it.

But they lecture their congregation (and higher up, the rest of us) from their supposedly superior moral position, or at least moral understanding, all the time.
And the real problem comes when the civil authorities, like in Ireland, act as if there was this moral edge. Remember how the Vatican ranted at the Belgian authorities getting evidence of the abuse and the cover up?
Hell, in Chicago a Catholic cop arrested Lenny Bruce for saying irreverent things about the Pope and Mary. Do you think his local priest or bishop told him to stop doing this?
Sure they did.
The scandal isn't that priests were abusers, it was that their bosses, trying to make the church seem like a paragon of virtue, cared more about the image of the church than the rights of the children. And then blame it all on the gays.

[Kimstu]

That argument doesn't hold up given the extra requirements placed on priests in order to perform that role.

Yes it does. To say that Church doctrine requires priests to behave morally, which it does, is not to say that Church doctrine requires lay Catholics to assume that priests are behaving morally, which it doesn't.

The doctrinal provision that you mention (and that Cecil discusses in the column I linked to previously) about the "indelible character" of the sacramental performance irrespective of the state of grace or otherwise of the sacramental officiant exists for this very reason. Theologians have always known damn well that there would inevitably be some bad people serving as priests, and consequently they have never officially required church members to believe that a priest must be a good person simply by virtue of his office.


But they lecture their congregation (and higher up, the rest of us) from their supposedly superior moral position, or at least moral understanding, all the time.

Yup, that's part of their duties. Are priests required by Church doctrine to instruct the faithful on how to be good people? Yes. Are priests required by Church doctrine to strive to be good people themselves, in order to carry out their duties most effectively? Yes. Are Catholics required by Church doctrine to take it for granted that any particular priest actually is a good person? Fuck no.


And the real problem comes when the civil authorities, like in Ireland, act as if there was this moral edge.

Damn straight: that's one of the reasons a civilized society should have strict separation of church and state. If it's not doctrinally required even for observant Catholics to take it for granted that Church representatives always behave morally, it's positively idiotic for public servants to do so when acting in their official capacities.

[gamerunknown]

Theologians have always known damn well that there would inevitably be some bad people serving as priests, and consequently they have never officially required church members to believe that a priest must be a good person simply by virtue of his office.

Except a priest's role is to espouse contrition and reconciliation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm) as necessary to salvation. A church member cannot, without some degree of cognitive dissonance, hold that they are confessing their sins to Christ via an unrepentant sinner. I know I've seen priests attend confession, but I still can't assume that it was the same sin each time. If I recall correctly, Jesus held hypocrites in open contempt.

[Kimstu]

Except a priest's role is to espouse contrition and reconciliation (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm) as necessary to salvation. A church member cannot, without some degree of cognitive dissonance, hold that they are confessing their sins to Christ via an unrepentant sinner.

Now you seem to be talking about what a Catholic layperson should do if they know that a particular priest is guilty of a particular sin and has not embraced repentance and amendment of life. That's another question. All I'm talking about here is the fact that Catholic doctrine, specifically the doctrine of priests acting in persona Christi, does not require Catholics to believe that priests are morally superior to laypeople.

[gamerunknown]

That's another question. All I'm talking about here is the fact that Catholic doctrine, specifically the doctrine of priests acting in persona Christi, does not require Catholics to believe that priests are morally superior to laypeople.

Yes, but let's return to what sisu said about "most Catholics".

Here are the facts they're armed with:

They are required to believe that in order to be saved from hellfire, they will be talking to Christ in human form and must consciously reject sin and take action to prevent themselves from committing the sin again. The priest they are talking to has taken a vow of celibacy.

From there, does it seem reasonable that most people will expect the priest to behave in an exemplary fashion?

That said, it was divorced from its original context, where the priests are not meant to be a theological authority (on gay marriage, abortion, contraception) other than from their increased knowledge of the Bible. Yet they are required to have a degree and undergo training at a seminary. They're also not permitted to administer sacraments if they espouse views which contradict the Vatican's, as evidenced by the excommunication of Call to Action members. These are things that the laity are aware of.

[sisu]

Abuse will happen. Around here some teachers and coaches have been accused of abuse.
The difference is that the civil authorities reported it immediately, got the person away from the kids, and made no effort to transfer him someplace else for another shot at new kids. And turning from signing the transfer papers to writing a sermon about how evil birth control and abortion is.
As for you, if you can't prevent it (and you can't) then you shouldn't support it.

To say that civil authorities have not covered up child abuse is wrong.

[jsc1953]

This is actually an interesting take on the problem. How did the CC deal with the last major scandal that wouldn't go away, the corruption in simony and indulgences in 1600 ? Two words: schism and protestantism (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation).

I was going to suggest that that is precisely what needs to happen: a Second Reformation. Somebody needs to start a church that is theologically similar to the RCC, but with married clergy and a more liberal view on reproductive issues.

And then I remembered that they already did. They're called Episcopalians.

[sisu]

I was going to suggest that that is precisely what needs to happen: a Second Reformation. Somebody needs to start a church that is theologically similar to the RCC, but with married clergy and a more liberal view on reproductive issues.

And then I remembered that they already did. They're called Episcopalians.

Correct but millions of people will still belong to the Catholic Church, which brings us back to the question "What is to be done?"

People have attacked me for my view that being involved in you kids' life may stop abuse or at the least catch it early. I still stand by this but please note I have always said MAY not will.

This stupid idea [seemingly coming from non Catholics] that people think that priests are some kind of holy man beyond what is human is dumb. I have never met a catholic who does not understand that a priest is a man who is as human and flawed as any other human. I see this with some Evangelical churches but not so much with Catholics. yes we think the Pope is pretty cool but again he is a man.

Catholics are not really big on the hell thing.

Someone picked me up on the we/me thing, simple I am one person who is a me who happens to be part of something hence the we. Is it that hard to understand?

Voyager's point about denial is a valid point and well said. This is our biggest issue, there are none so blind who cannot see.

Boyo Jum asked "How do you maintain vigilance of priest placement?" Well that is not what I said, I was talking about placing my children and others in situations that could lead to abusive behavior. Just like I do when my kids go to swim school, scouts, gym, tutoring etc. Taking care and practicing constant vigilance is the key.

I feel pain for those that have been abused and maintain my stance and activism that the perpetrators and those that covered it up must have the full weight of the law placed upon them. Do not think I talk form a theoretical position as I was once abused, not by a priest but a teacher in a state school. I get it, I understand it.

[Boyo Jim]

...
Someone picked me up on the we/me thing, simple I am one person who is a me who happens to be part of something hence the we. Is it that hard to understand? ...

...
Boyo Jum asked "How do you maintain vigilance of priest placement?" Well that is not what I said, I was talking about placing my children and others in situations that could lead to abusive behavior. Just like I do when my kids go to swim school, scouts, gym, tutoring etc. Taking care and practicing constant vigilance is the key.
...

Aside from getting my name wrong...

I was one of those who asked the me/we thing. The reason is that you said in post #92, "Well I will continue to push for change from within..." And you have repeatedly failed to explain what you are doing in pursuit of that, instead replying with generalities about what needs to be done, or what the church needs to do.

If you are not personally taking action, then you are simply choosing to believe as an article of faith that Church officials are doing the right thing.

As to the second point, you DID say, word of word, in post #95, "Vigilance on priest placements." This was in attempting to respond to my question about how are you personally taking actions to push for change from within.

I ask you again -- what are you personally doing to push for change from within? That's what you claimed you were doing.

[sisu]

I am not going to go into detail about what I am doing but rest assured that being a lay member of the church and also actively participating in the day to day running of activities my voice and actions are heard. Associations always listen to the noisy people and I am one.

The vigilance and priest placements was in regards to doing a background check on any new priest that appears in my parish. I will contact people who have had dealings with him and if I feel that there is reason for concern it will be raised with the parish group and in one case directly with the priest in question. I am friends with the local PD and would also raise concerns with them if it felt a bit for a better word "iffy".

Sorry Jim, not Jum but that is about as specific as I will get in an internet forum.

[muldoonthief]

Sorry don't buy it, are you telling me that a parent can't spot when a kid is being abused? I call bull...

Bull it's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility as a parent. The signs are there, it is up to us who choose to become parents to learn what these are. It is something that I have done and everyone I know has. If someone chooses not to then they are shirking responsibility.

This is not to dilute what the abusers have done but I have seen too many stories where the parents and sometimes partners in parental abuse have chosen to live with their heads in the sand.

My point is simple, stay involved in your kid's life and you will most probably stop any abuse before it occurs.

People have attacked me for my view that being involved in you kids' life may stop abuse or at the least catch it early. I still stand by this but please note I have always said MAY not will.


Keep backpedaling...

[Boyo Jim]

I am not going to go into detail about what I am doing but rest assured that being a lay member of the church and also actively participating in the day to day running of activities my voice and actions are heard. Associations always listen to the noisy people and I am one.

The vigilance and priest placements was in regards to doing a background check on any new priest that appears in my parish. I will contact people who have had dealings with him and if I feel that there is reason for concern it will be raised with the parish group and in one case directly with the priest in question. I am friends with the local PD and would also raise concerns with them if it felt a bit for a better word "iffy".

Sorry Jim, not Jum but that is about as specific as I will get in an internet forum.

In other words, you're doing absolutely nothing that you haven't always done.

Apparently you intend to check out new priests in the future? Have you ever done it yet? Would you expect that, if you called the rectory where the priest used to be before moving to your parish, that anyone there would tell a total stranger on the phone that the priest was suspected of abusing children? Just who and what would you ask that you could have any reasonable expectation of candid and complete reply?

It has been demonstrated time and time again for hundreds of years that the Church doesn't listen to its lay membership.

Let me make a suggestion -- get together with your fellow parishioners and tell the Church that you are going to withhold all money from them until they enact certain practices and make themselves and their actions transparent to independent observers. That is the only single act that might draw a response -- though the response might be to close down the parish rather than submit to oversight from its own parishioners.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Apparently you intend to check out new priests in the future? Have you ever done it yet? Would you expect that, if you called the rectory where the priest used to be before moving to your parish, that anyone there would tell a total stranger on the phone that the priest was suspected of abusing children? Just who and what would you ask that you could have any reasonable expectation of candid and complete reply? The church has a history of lying about its priests' past behaviors...especially sexual misconduct.

[Locrian]

Well, I'll jump on the "blame the media" bandwagon for this.

Why is this not front page news on every paper/website in the US? This is way more important than some retarded Florida "stand your ground" law violation/adherence. WAY more important than some assholes in robes deciding about a health care plan.

Why sweep this one under the rug, newsies? This could be the turning point in showing evidence in a humongous child-molestation scam only protected by a bunch of other robed assholes who like to carry incense and useless fantasy books.

Bringing this to light is one thing, prosecuting is another. Let's prosecute this up to the fucking (and I mean a child-fucking supporting papal git) real man's laws that usurp these fantasies and turn the Vatican into a garage sale. Fuck, we could make enough money off a photograph of the Sistine Chapel sold to a dumb-fuck bible-humping, statue-building country who we told that "it's been blessed" by the (hopefully) soon to be executed pope to handle our deficit.

If we can't do that, dropping the ceiling of said chapel on North Korea would suit me fine. Of course, the wannabe shits who swear it's real would be claiming that it's "god's work."

[ambushed]

Uh, so is this supposed to be surprising or something? Of course kids who were queer (or who were perceived as being queer) got tortured. That's not really news.

My response is not limited to you alone, myx, but this is a good opportunity to say this...

Why post such inane comments? What's the value of trying so hard to prove how hopelessly world-weary and sneeringly cynical you are, as if a prize awaits you if you outscore everyone else in apathetic insouciance? Perhaps you were trying (unsuccessfully) to deliver a bit of sardonic satire, but the whole "this is supposed to be surprising or something?" and "That's not really news" attitude is extremely pretentious and off-putting!

[The Great Sun Jester]

Size is irrelevant. Oh there you go, bringing sex into it again.

[Maastricht]

There is some news.

This thread was sparked by the news in a Dutch paper about a man who was castrated as a boy without his consent "to cure his homosexual tendencies" after being put in a catholic's boys home and being vocal about the sexual abuse by priests he had suffered.

The paper published this news after the large Dutch parliamentary Inquest into chruch-sanctioned sexual abuse had been presented and this particular information had not been included. That was rather painful for the inquest committee, who had said they had been complete and thorough.

Anyway, the newspaper article led to addictional questions and additional inquests into the matter. Today, some results have been published. They point both ways.
1. In the fifties up until the seventies, castration was thought of by Catholics to be a viable cure for homosexuality. There are records of a bishop urging at least two surgeons to perform castrations for such cases. The catholics didn't differ much from the general population in that regard, though, most people at the time thougth vaguely that castration would cure sexual deviance. But of course Church officials were far more likely to seek out and condemn homosuality and demand for it to be "cured". Not just in boys, but in adults too. Strangely enough, castration was never advocated as a way to make priests less vulnerable to the temptation :dubious:
2. At least in the Netherlands, priests were not always just protected and placed elsewhere after accusations of sexual misconduct. The enquiry found evidence of at least 54 cases where molesting priests were legally prosecuted.

Another interesting article in the paper inspired by this scandal was that of a boy who studied to be a priest in the fifties. He was never (sexually) abused, but he describes the culture and atmosphere in such seminaries as thorougly sick and repressing. A hotbed for neurosis, body-hostile, hostile to normal human relationships. And most of all, hostile to developing a normal sense of one's own sexuality and the responsibilities that come with it. Better to call it evil, dwell on it and project that evil on others. After reading that, it is actually a miracle the Church hasn't made more childmolestors than it did.

[Maastricht]

On a more serious note, given the times and the attitudes toward homosexuality back then, I would be surprised if this, er... remedy was restricted to the Dutch Catholic church, or any church for that matter.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that there are thousands of men all over the world who were castrated during the same period, and have never spoken out due to fear or shame.
Here the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_change_efforts) on Sexual orientation change efforts.
Medical attempts to change homosexuality included surgical treatments such as hysterectomy, ovariectomy, clitoridectomy, castration, vasectomy, pudic nerve surgery, and lobotomy. Substance-based methods included hormone treatment, pharmacologic shock treatment, and treatment with sexual stimulants and sexual depressants.
Other methods included aversion therapy, the reduction of aversion to heterosexuality,electroshock treatment, group therapy, hypnosis, and psychoanalysis

A majority of people who attempt to change their sexual orientation come from conservative religious backgrounds. A study by Spitzer found that 79% of 200 men and women who said they changed their sexual orientation were motivated by religion, with 93% indicating that religion is "extremely" or "very" important.