Absolutely. And, to my mind, the sin of those in the hierarchy who covered up, who enabled, who minimized, who blamed the victims, is as great as the sin of the priests who actually sexually abused children.
I agree its not limited to the Church, but I sit in awe at just how brazen it was (is) with its response. Bernard Law, Cardinal of Boston, concealed sexual abuse cases for decades by dozens of priests. He was given a high position in Rome, and voted in conclave. I can’t think of any other institution which had as important of a figure involved in cover up, who was then promoted and honored until his death. Men like him make me wish that there was a hell for him to go to. Instead the Church treated him like a hero. I do not believe there is a comparable situation outside the Church.
He wasn’t really promoted - they put him in charge of a large basilica in Rome, but that’s definitely a step down from being archbishop of one of the most important archdiocese in the USA. But they absolutely moved him out of the country to protect him and the church from more bad press and possible prosecution. Which makes John Paul II just as evil as Law was, IMO.
No doubt I should have used a better choice of words - it was not a promotion. Put into a position where he could continue to exercise a great deal of influence would have been a better way to phrase it.
“Until his retirement …He did not lose his influence. He was a member of more congregations than any other bishop… Cardinals that are members of these offices can’t always go to the meetings–they are not in Rome–but Bernie Law did and he goes everywhere and he keeps his head held high.” (From the wikipedia article on Bernard Law).
And he used his influence for things like crackdowns on US nuns, who committed terrible crimes such as “sometimes took positions in opposition to the nation’s bishops” and “silent on the right to life from conception to natural death”,
@Saintly_Loser said he is from Brooklyn.
Here’s an article from April this year:
The 571 complaints filed against the Diocese, which covers Brooklyn and Queens, during the first 17 months of the act includes filings against 532 institutions under control of the religious district and 301 alleged abusers. Of those alleged abusers are 230 members of the clergy.
Also including the Bishop of Brooklyn:
Yes, I’m well aware of all that. It’s often discussed in my community.
This is exactly why I think the Church’s situation is so different than other organizations that have been involved in sexual abuse scandals. I am not aware of any allegations that a boy scout leader that brushed sexual abuse under the rug was then allowed to continue in a high ranking and influential position. Some of that may be explained by the differences in the nature of their organizations. The boy scouts don’t have a nation state where they can send their disgraced leaders, of course. To me, its just audacious that an organization that has had its sins so blatantly and publicly exposed, thumbed their nose at any level of adult responsibility for those sins, can then pretend to have the moral authority to lecture anyone on whether they are allowed to take communion.
The Boy Scouts also aren’t very hierarchical. Very few people get involved in Boy Scouts, and then choose a troop: Most of the people involved in Scouting are involved because they or their sons are members of a single, specific troop. A leader couldn’t be “assigned to a different troop”, because nobody but them is assigning them to troops to begin with.
That’s true at the troop level, but not necessarily true above that. I don’t pretend to have full understanding of the scouts, but in my experience with my son’s scout troop, I believe there are regional, state and national hierarchies. People that serve in some of those roles are no longer in leadership in their local troops. A regional leader with accusations against him could be “reassigned” duties to other troops. I saw something like this happen (not related to sexual assault allegations) with my son’s troop and a regional leader. Its off topic so I won’t bother with the details.
The most salient difference is that in the year after the BSA sex abuse scandal exploded, they lost half their members. While it’s true that scouting has been somewhat on the decline long-term, that’s a year-on-year comparison just from where it was in 2019 to 2020. People react more rationally to other organizations and they will, at minimum, form alternative scouting groups with better people and better procedures in charge to protect their kids.
The Catholic Church in America actually gets larger every year because of the belief that Saintly_Loser is dancing around in this thread - no matter how many priests are implicated, if you are a true believer, you must be in communion with the church in order to achieve salvation. I asked Catholics the same question about whether they would be comfortable leaving their child with a priest 20 years ago and the most shocking thing is that none of the revelations that have come out since then have changed the answer at all. We can pretend that the “4 to 5 percent” number is accurate when we all know it’s a wild undercounting, but what matters more is that even if 10 or 20 or 50 or 70 percent of priests were convicted abusers, a true believer could not and will not leave the Church or refuse communion from those priests, because it is the only way to salvation. Trying to get SL to admit that in so many words will be a waste of time, but it’s the staggering reality of why it’s different when a church does it.
This is not true. You are factually wrong about the teachings of the Catholic Church. And it’s a waste of time trying to point out a factual error to you, because you prefer to go with the distortion of the truth that you’ve made up.
Great.
At what percentage of priests being conclusively proven abusers would you withdraw yourself and your children from the Church? If it was 70%, what actions would you take?
I am, very sincerely and without snark, interested in hearing why this is wrong. I have always been under the (perhaps mistaken) belief that being in communion with the church is required for Catholics, and thus one of the reasons why many believers stick with the Church where members of other congregations would simply leave for greener pastures at another Church or denomination. I.e. if a Methodist minister was found to have committed wrongdoing, his parishioners can just go down the street to the Episcopal Church.
For me, I am less interested in what percentage of a group are bad apples, and more interested in what the institution does about the bad apples. The Church’s response to the allegations has been terrible. Maybe they are getting better, I personally haven’t seen evidence of that, but I am hoping to be wrong.
Lets assume the same number of bad apples are at work in the BSA and the Church. The BSA has taken a lot of steps to make sure they don’t have people sweeping allegations under the rug again. Based on that, I am willing to give the BSA the benefit of the doubt with my son (cautiously, and with vigilance), even though I know they probably still have the same 4 or 5% of bad apples in the organization. Given the Church’s actions over the past 10 years, I don’t know how anyone can give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, I am open to and hopeful that I am wrong.
It’s true that a Catholic won’t go down the block to the Episcopal Church - but that’s not the same thing as saying a true believer can’t refuse communion from a particular priest . In my case, the next Catholic parish to mine is closer to my house than the nearest Episcopal or Lutheran church. It depends on how many priests are in a parish and how geographically distant the parishes are. Catholics are only required to receive communion once a year during the Easter season - and I suspect most can get access to another priest once a year
ZS seems to be saying that Catholics believe that being a Catholic in good standing is necessary for salvation. The Church does not teach this.
You may be asking in good faith, but I don’t believe that others will respond in good faith. ZS has already said that I willingly and knowingly hand my own children over to child molesters, which is a truly vile and disgusting thing to say to a parent. I think it at least should be beyond what’s permissible even in the Pit, but apparently it’s not.
So I don’t doubt your good faith, but I’m sick of the disgusting shit I’ve put up with in this thread. I can’t deal with it anymore.
You want an answer about the Church’s teaching on salvation, start a thread outside the PIt. I’ll participate, to the best of my limitied ability, until the inevitable moment when ZS or someone like her.him shows up.
The Church has, very recently, made doctrinal allowances that support the idea that those born into other religions may achieve salvation through their own paths. How many devout lay Catholics (a very conservative group that seems very willing to ignore any Papal proclamations they find “too liberal”) actually believe this is questionable, and the Church has never said that people baptized into the Church may choose to convert to other religions on their own accord without consequence.
The fact that, for people who are Catholics, certain rituals of the Church are required, and those rituals must be mediated by priests, and the anti-donatist theology already discussed in this thread has been doctrine for 1700 years, does in fact mean that most believing (as opposed to “cultural” or social) Catholics understand that there could be a scenario in which they must receive a sacrament from a priest who is a known child molester.
If this wasn’t the case, then you wouldn’t be refusing to answer the question as predicted - given that you’ve made it clear that you find at least 5% of priests being child molesters to be completely acceptable vis-a-vis your decision to remain in the Catholic Church and even continue to put your children in the care of priests, is there any number at which that decision would change?
If 20%, or 50%, or 100% of priests were known to be child molesters, would you stop leaving them alone with your children? Would you stop participating in the Church yourself? If there is some number at which the percentage of priests who are child molesters has anything at all to do with your decision on receiving communion from and/or handing your children to those priests, then please tell us what the number is. Otherwise, I am justified in concluding that there is no such number (your performative outrage at choosing to click on a thread entitled “Catholic Bishops can suck my ass” and finding people with anti-Catholic opinions in said thread notwithstanding).
I’m refusing to answer because you’re a piece of shit who isn’t worth wasting a keystroke on. You’ve flat-out accused me of participating in the molestation of my own children. For any decent human being (which you clearly are not), that would be something to never say. It’s unforgiveable. Anywhere else, that would be actionable, but you’re the kind of coward who thrives in anonymity, who becomes his/her true self only in darkness.
I’ve been on my best behavior in this thread, while the idea that you’re actually looking for anything but a fight is laughable, at best.
You’re contemptible. You’re trash. I’m done with you.
I find the child abuse to be the more contemptible thing than the discussion of whether you could be doing more to prevent child abuse, but opinions are what they are. I’m going to extend my prediction to: no matter what forum the question is asked in, no matter who asks it and in what tone of respect, you will not answer it, because we all know what the answer is.