People who possess child porn are abusers at one remove, in my opinion, as children were necessarily abused to produce it.
As for the maths, the order is (I guess at least) people abused by priests is less than total number of abusers in society as a whole, which in turn is less than the number of people abused in total. I may not have been clear in the phrasing of it, my point is that even if you aren’t aware of it you will know both abusers and the abused.
I’m not in any way defending the church here, I agree with everything you’ve said about what the hierarchy has done. I’m pretty anti-religion in general, so have no motive to defend them. A major point I was trying to make is that many other organisations and cultures have covered up abuse, or failed to report it. Whether it’s Hollywood, police forces, or pro wrestling training schools, there have been stories from all over about abuse being reported and ignored. It is, distressingly, a human problem not specifically a Catholic one.
Reading those quotes and being raised in Catholic Spain in the 60s & 70s, I can’t but remember the old saying that a Catholic priest is someone who is called Father by everyone except his children, who call him uncle.
But the Catholic Church is not the only evil in town, others are just as bad, so for whataboutism sake, enjoy this:
It’s only that I know Catholicism first hand, the rest from reading or distant hearsay, and I cannot concur with Saintly Loser’s defense of the institution and its members. For which I am sorry, but that is my experience. I won’t go into details, because they are anecdotical, but it is bad.
There’s a certain karmic element in that their attempt to prevent “scandal” and disrepute for the Church, resulted in a worse scandal and greater disrepute for the Church.
And for some reason I get this feeling that many of the people in the institution who aided and abetted the misdeeds, are among the same ones who make a huge deal about the “liberals” like Biden and Pope Francis weakening the Church.
The number who are proven to be abusers, by criminal conviction or otherwise, to the point that non-libel-proof outlets feel comfortable reporting on their names, is the same. Given that most of the reasons that priests get away with it don’t apply to freelance abusers, it only stands to reason that there are more abusers in the Church when accounting for those who are never exposed.
But the point of this thread is that they are the evil that is pushing denying Biden communion for his evil. Not for any actions other than saying it ain’t any of the government’s business what a woman chooses to do with her body.
I do not the answer to this question, so I will ask: If a Priest is shown to have sexually abused a bunch of kids, do they deny HIM communion? I mean, for decades and decades, they didn’t even lose their jobs.
The number of priests proven to be abusers is significantly lower, due to the reasons discussed in this thread. Don’t let your (justified) hatred of the church blind you to the amount of abusers in the rest of society.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t the power dynamic that both attracts abusers and puts them into a position of power/control as well as the role of ‘instructor’ to children used to being taught daily by teachers. I’m not defending the RCC; they suck. That said this same dynamic exists with all religions.
I suspect that a graph of the number of abusers holding local religious leader roles vs non abusers over time would have very few deviations (ha!) if each religion’s graph were over layed against any/all of the ‘other’ religions.
I suspect that, but I don’t have the stats in front of me to prove that.
Sacrificing the pieces to protect the King/the Institution is a defense, sometimes even a very good one. It’s just that I don’t agree with the defense of the Church as an institution. And that is true for all the monotheistic churches I know. You, on the other hand, seem to me to believe that you can defend the Catholic Church because not all the members/priests/bishops… are pedophiles. Critizise and censor the ones who commit the deeds and the institution comes out just dandy. There I disagree. I still believe that even if you purge all perpetrators today, the church will invite new ones tomorrow and the instinct of the institution will be to cover the deeds up if suspition arises.
That is the theory, but in practice sinners have received communion and even given communion for years. Even if they confessed and were pardoned or absolved or whatever the term you prefer, something we shall never know because confession is secret and confidential, they did it again, and again, and again… so the one fundamental condition for pardoning this sin, to repent, is not fulfilled. They are in mortal sin according to the definition of the Church itselt, are they not? And still, they not only gave and received communion, they administered the other sacraments as well.
Not to mention scout leaders, sports coaches, and teachers at non-religious schools. And there have been many cases of different types of secular institutions trying to protect abusers.
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) organization has reached an $850m agreement with attorneys representing about 60,000 victims of child sexual abuse in what could prove to be a pivotal moment in the group’s bankruptcy case.
The cases date back to the 1950s but also include contemporary examples
Well, the theory is always better than the practice, no? That’s kind of built in to human nature.
As to priests in a state of mortal sin giving (and confecting), as opposed to receiving, the Eucharist, the Church is not concerned about that. That issue was put to bed more than a thousand years ago.
Google “Donatism,” if you care. And there’s no reason at all that you should care – it’s only a point of concern for those who believe in the whole Real Presence thing. It’s probably outside the scope of this discussion.
Donatism? Nice, a heresy unknown to me so far. But a logical one, the problem is evident. And that the Church would not deem the sacraments administered in sin to be invalid is logical too, anything else would be institutionally too risky. Who could know, after all, if the priest in question was free of sin? They would most probably not be! Jesus himself spoke of those who were free of sin as the ones who should throw the first stone, knowing full well that no one would dare to do so after serious introspection.
From the Wikipedia article on Donatism:
In Mauretania and Numidia, the splinter groups were so numerous that the Donatists could not name them all.
Turbulent times, those were. People seem to have taken words and creeds more literally back then. Now I will look up what the Real Presence is, I reckon I will be surprised again.
Zwingli’s view became associated with the term Memorialism, suggesting an understanding of the Eucharist held purely “in memory of” Christ. While this accurately describes the position of the Anabaptists and derived traditions, it is not the position held by Zwingli himself, who affirmed that Christ is truly (in substance), though not naturally (physically) present in the sacrament.
Just one of many sentences in the article about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist that shows that splitting hairs was an Olympian Discipline in Scholastic times. Very interesting historically, but irrelevant for this discussion, as you said yourself. And you claim that those distinctions are really important for people today, you included? More important even than the sinfulness or innocence of the priest reading the mass and administering the sacraments? There is a lot we do not agree on.
I don’t “claim” that those distinctions (or at least some of them) are really important for me and many, many others, they are. The Eucharist, and the belief that Christ is physically present in the bread and wine, is incredibly important to Catholics, and the various Orthodox churches, and (to varying degrees) to Anglicans. Many (most?) Protestant denominations don’t believe that the bread and wine are anything more than a memorial, but, as I said, it’s hugely important to Catholics. Central, in fact.
The sinfulness or innocence of the priest confecting the Eucharist is irrelevant to Catholics, insofar as the validity of the sacraments he administers is concerned.
Of course, it may be (and should be) important to parishioners who their priest is – there’s no reason they should tolerate a priest who sins in some ways (but let’s leave a bit of room for the ordinary sins we all commit every day), especially if that priest is putting members of the community in danger.
But a priest’s sinfulness doesn’t affect the validity of the sacraments.
So, repeatedly raping children…not a mortal sin. Repeatedly and purposely sheltering and transferring people have and continue to rape children…not a mortal sin.
Believing that the Government should have no say in abortion…mortal sin.
Who said that? Seriously – that’s not a claim that’s ever been made by anyone.
Probably not, in and of itself. Actively working to expand access to abortion? According to some subset of the USCCB, yes. According to me, I don’t really know.
