That doesn’t work when the Pope is accused of being one of the “some people” and of heavy involvement in the cover-up, since he is the Hierarchy, especially in the Church’s eye. (Criticising him = criticising the Church)
You know, I could live with that. What I can’t live with is that they cared more about the reputation of the church than ***preventing ***them from molesting ***more ***children.
Not only did they not prevent it, they seem to have been criminally negligient, and were setting up an evironment that made it easier to repeat and repeat and repeat
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
It was an institutional cover-up. That a lot different than a few perverts doing bad things.
When the institution is guilty for their actions then the institution isn’t being unfairly criticized when the cover-up is exposed.
Benny the Many should resign. I don’t hate the Roman Catholic Church and do think that in too many cases it has been the victim of blatant prejudice that could not be directed at any other group. However, the abuse scandal is indefensible. The dogma was such that they were telling people they were going to go to Hell if they missed Mass on Sunday, ate meat on Friday, “touched themselves inappropriately” or used “artificial” methods to plan their family. Meanwhile . . .
Two points that seem to be being overlooked:
- The pope didn’t say it.
- The comparison was made by a Jewish guy who was simply being quoted.
Nobody said he did. From the article:
I’m sure he didn’t just make it up on the spot.
Or so he claims. Anyway, what’s that got to do with anything? It’s an incredibly stupid and offensive thing to say and repeating it in a prayer in the most important church in catholicism on one of the most important days of the catholic year in front of the most important man in the church does not make it less stupid and offensive in the least.
Two points:
1.) The Pope is implicated in a cover-up that was all too common. It was institutional policy.
2.) The comments were made by the Pope’s preacher. That’s heavy duty authority. That he uses a quote from a Jewish friend to try to mitigate the gravity of the problem is farcical. It wasn’t as if a group of high level Jewish authorities issued a signed statement in defense of the RCC using the anti-Semitic analogy.
The first point is the ONLY one that matters. All the rest is just noise.
OK, but the second point is pertinent to the OP.
Yes it is, but it’s the first one that most disgusts me.
The Catholic Church Godwinizes the debate.
And so, according to the rules, they lose.
We are on the same page.
It’s like the scandal when the Bush administration was caught firing Democratic federal prosecutors, and Ari Fleischer stood there saying “they serve at the pleasure of the president” over and over, as if on the 50th utterance everyone would suddenly say “Well then, that’s good enough for me.”
It does deflect the issue, though only briefly, from “how corrupt could you have been to do this” to “how stupid could you have been to offer this lame excuse?”
But after that wears off, we’re left with the conviction that they’re corrupt and stupid.
Hmm, the BBC article kind of repeats the quote…I’d like to see a transcript, I’d bet in context it wasn’t that bad.
I’m not pro-catholic or anything, I just know what the press are like.
It reminds me of when Heather Mills said she was being hounded by the press the same way Diana was. The next day The Sun had the headline “I’m just like Princess Diana” – in quote marks.
At this point, I almost expect to find this in non-*Onion *media.
As I posted somewhere else;
Dear Catholic Church,
Welcome to the 21st Century. I think you will find that, unlike in previous centuries, the Church is actually required to follow the laws of the lands in which it operates and act in accordance with the welfare of it’s members. Pedophilia and the protection thereof will not be tolerated. No, I’m sorry, this does not constitute ‘persecution’ of the church, nor is it wise to compare it to the legitimate and unlawful suffering of others.
When we in the United States prosecuted Hmong immigrants for marrying off 12 year old girls to 40 year old men, we were not attacking Hmong Culture, we were enforcing our pre-existing laws against such things. So when we prosecute your priests for Pedophilia, and criticize the illegal protection the Church has given those offenders, we are likewise not persecuting the Church. We are only enforcing our nations laws for the protection of our citizens.
So rather than accept your complaints about the enforcement of our laws, we can only assume that such complaints indicate that the Church feels that no harm has been done through these unlawful acts, has no remorse for these actions and does not intend to stop doing them. This is the message you send.
In what context does “The passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of antisemitism.” not look bad? Even disregarding that the Church itself was a main instigator of “the more shameful aspects of antisemitism” as the preacher probably intended that term to be interpreted it’s abundantly clear that the Church as an institution is responsible for covering up and enabling child abuse on a massive scale over decades. Comparing the people who realize that to shameful antisemites is hypocritical, vile, self-serving, passive-aggressive and a good indication of how seriously the Church takes its complicity in these crimes (this is; not at all).
I also note that the actual “most shameful aspects of antisemitism” lead to an industrial scale mass extermination of its victims, which is in no way comparable to the “attacks” the Church is currently undergoing. I see the priest was only 10 at the time WWII ended, but I still expect him to realize that, just like everybody else in the civilized world.