Catholic church and child molestation redux

Great Debates
141

Actually, every Catholic bishop received a letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2001 specifically instructing them to keep child abuse investigations secret from secular authorities. So in this respect they did not “just happen” to act similarly; they were in fact instructed to act similarly, by a high-ranking Church official.

One would think that if they actually held the welfare of the abuse victims in mind, they would have shared information as quickly as possible with local authorities, rather than implementing a policy that, due to the statute of limitations, makes it nearly impossible for perpetrators to be held accountable by the law. (Ratzinger asserted that evidence should be kept confidential for 10 years after the victims had reached adulthood.)

Cite, in case you need one: Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry | World news | The Guardian

I feel that I should say here that when I left the church of my childhood, I did so only because I had stopped believing in God, and not because I felt that the Catholic church was inherently evil or whatever. I retained a lot of good, warm feelings towards the community of faith I’d been raised in. When the first news about the child abuse scandal started coming out, I assumed that it was a matter of isolated incidents, and that Catholic priests were taking a lot of media heat because, well, people like to bash on Catholicism. Then more and more reports started coming out, and it seemed that not only were these not rare and isolated incidents, but the Church had actively been working to keep the molesters from being caught, often moving them into new areas with new populations of kids to abuse. Maybe none of this came from the Pope himself; I don’t know. But enough of it came from high enough up in the chain that it’s just not defensible. This is an organization that claims divine authority; that says “suffer the little children to come unto Me”; it is supposed to be protecting and nurturing the children in its flock, not allowing predators to openly harm them, and then protecting those predators from any consequences.

I just can’t defend the Church’s actions anymore. The whole thing is a howling outrage, and I find it personally depressing (although not terribly surprising, I guess) that there are people who are still vigorously defending the RCC’s actions in this whole mess.

Anyway, I have no more time this weekend, and frankly not a lot more energy, for debate on this topic, so there’s my official statement, for what that’s worth. :stuck_out_tongue:

142

This sums up my thoughts on this topic as well. I also grew up in the Catholic church and left for the same reason. Still, I used to believe that the church was a bigger positive than negative.

Instead of getting bogged down in one or two specific examples, one needs to look at the big picture. The big picture is truly disgusting and because of it I now see The Church as only slightly less deceitful and malevolent than $cientology and other similar cults.

143

But bishops and archbishops are all part of the same organization. They aren’t secretive loners. They talk to each other about all sorts of things. They are part of a hierarchical organization. They aren’t secretive loners like thieves. There’s a whole worldwide bureaucratic apparatus, and people move from diocese to diocese. And who’s at the Vatican, if not people who had previously been in positions of authority in local dioceses?

The bishops and the archbishops pretty much all had the problem of sexually abusive priests to deal with. I can believe that they all independently wanted to be discreet about it. But I find it hard to believe that they all acted contrary to what they believed the Vatican expected of them. I’m not alleging a worldwide conspiracy, but rather a worldwide expectation among the church hierarchy that secrecy is expected.

144

Despite the interpretation claimed by the Guardian, (or reported by the Guardian as claimed by someone else), that is not really what the letter says:

The letter is not silencing anyone in regard to civil law. The portions talking about ten years after a molested child has reached the age of 18 are actually extensions of the “statute of limitations” discussed earlier in the thread. The letter says that the limitations run out for sacriligious acts after ten years, but that in the case of molestation, the ten year clock does not even begin to run until the child has reached the age of 18. Rather than an act silencing bishops, it was an extension of the period in which a minor child could bring charges in the ecclesiastical court.

Note the reference to the 1962 letter Crimen sollicitationis. The “pontifical secret” to which the letter refers only imposes silence on the authorities of the church in regards to internal church discussions regarding actions that violate church law and they do not impose silence in regard to civil law. That was true in 1962 and was reinforced in 2001 when Crimen sollicitationis was superseded by Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela under a new revision of Canon Law. Church authorities who are reviewing complaints of sacrilige or molestation may not discuss the findings in regard to church law, but they are not prohibited from bringing accusations of crimes against civil law to the attention of the civil authorities.

145

Just in case you haven’t heard of this documentary…

146

Actually, the idiotic Catholic cheerleader, Bill Donahue, pointed out on Larry King that post-pubescent is when some become homosexual and it’s their fault for enticing said priests. When Sinead O’Connor asked him to define the post pubescent age in America, he dumbly said “12 or 13”. This comes from the lay leader of the Catholic church in the state of New York.

It sounds like terryobrien80 may be a fan of Bill Donahue. But he’s incorrect about it being ignored in the media. The reason terry80 gives is another way of explaining around the actual problem-- priests are molesting children, and 14 is certainly not post-pubescent and not a definitive age where homosexuality begins.

( If interested, here’s the clip from Larry King, go to about 2:45.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhr_Wy-aAtA )

147

Donohue is not remotely “the lay leader of the Catholic church” in New York or anywhere else outside Donohue’s mind.

The Catholic League is a private organization that was founded with the intention of being the Catholic equivalent to the Anti-Defamation League. In its early years, it got a fair amount of Catholic good will by highlighting genuine attacks on the church by various media or, occasionally, government agencies. Since Donohue took over, however, it has become little more than a shrill soapbox for his own personal recreational outrage at anything that strikes his paranoid persecution complex as offensive.

He holds no position in the Catholic church, provides no “leadership” beyond soliciting funds for his newsletter,and has failed to actually “lead” any Catholics to engage in any behavior beyond writing him checks.

148

Raises hands. “Cause the states didn’t systematically use those laws to protect and enable child abusers?”

149

I think that is a politically correct falsehood. I would not have sex with an underage girl, because it is morally wrong. I would enjoy it, however. The thought of having sex with an underage boy leaves me cold. I do not care if he is beautiful, feminine, and takes all the initiative. I would have no interest in him at all.

About 85 percent of victims of priestly pedophiles were boys at the time of the crimes. That tells me that homosexuals are much more likely to abuse minors than are heterosexuals.

150

Yes, I meant to put quotes around that phrase initially. During the clip I posted, he says things like “This is what the catholic church thinks…” over and over, as if he really knows what everyone is thinking. But “12 or 13”??? Glad he’s not a child psychologist. :smiley:

151

To be 100% honest, I was going somewhere with it at the time, but for the life of me I cannot remember, or even work out, where. It doesn’t seem to make sense as it stands. :stuck_out_tongue:

152

Well, unless you are claiming to suffer from a pedophilic disposition, (which I am sure you are not), your opinion is less than worthless in this instance.

The point of the studies into pedophilia are demonstrating that the pedophile has sexual urges that are quite different from the rest of us. Contrasting your urges to theirs only demonstrates that you are not among them.

In cases of ephebophilia, I would suspect that there could be a specific sexual orientation–because the targets are already displaying sexual traits–although I have not read enough on that topic to be sure.

153

MsWhatsit – tomndebb’s answer to the Guardian letter needs no addition from me.