John Paul II can take the log out of his eye, and stick it up his ass.

The BBQ Pit
41

according to this in the one suit, it names 3 bishops, (this was in reference to one victim) and mentions also the three other bishops in another area with multiple victims.

Just the tip 'o the iceberg, unless you wish to believe that there was only the one victim in the one area and the one other priest in the other (difficult to believe that since in the Boston area case, IIRC, they’ve turned over the names of several additional priests and lots of victims).

and those are just the most recent. I remember hearing about this issue for years. It’s difficult to believe that word didn’t wander up the ranks. Certainly there were large cash payments, lots of sudden transfers to account for.

42

Different jurisdictions have different laws.

In Ontario there is no privilege pertaining to the confessional. Lawyers have solicitor-client privilege, and there is some privilege for discussions and decisions by ministers of state (Crown privilege), but there is no privilege for priests, doctors, social workers, or other professionals.

Concerning the obligation to report child abuse, priests and any other persons having professional or offical duties concerning children, other than lawyers, must report.

43

Excuse me Father of Loki, you are the one accusing. You should provide the evidence that the church as an isntitution with the Pope leading the way. It seems that you are suffering from a little dose of “anti catholicism”, are you really comparing the Catholic church of the 21 century with the one of the 15 century? Are you comparing Borgia, Jules II, Urbano “the terrible” Clemente VII “the butcher of Casena” with Karol Wojtila? The problem with the church is that it’s not only an spiritual power but also was, and to a lesser extent is today, a temporal one. Jules the Second was a soldier because he was also a prince. He had to protect his domains. He was wrong but the moral standars of the age made things like that happen. A priest (bishop, pope, etc) is a human being he is raised in an age, you want perfect people to fill the post but the truth is no one is.

44

That reminds me of a study I read about in the late 80s – some professor visited a seminary and questioned the residents about their sexuality (or lack thereof). According to the prof, something like 60-70 percent of the seminarians identified themselves as gay (he didn’t say how many were sexually active).

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll become pedophile priests (or even sexually active ones, for that matter).

45

One professor “visited” one seminary and “asked” the students about their sexual orientation ond found a strong majority were self-professed gay? Aside from all the problems with methodology and extrapolation, first I just have to ask:
cite?

46

Sorry, don’t have one. I share your questions about the validity of the study – the article I read (at least 15 years ago) didn’t go into much more detail than I did.

Anyway, I never read too much into it – it’s just an interesting piece of data (obviously, since I still remember it). In fact, at the time, I figured that the seminarians were messing with the prof’s mind (especially if they were Jesuits :wink: ).

47

I have mixed feelings about the whole scandal, due in part to the difficulty in placing all the facts in perspective. I certainly don’t think that the leadership (on the local and world wide level) have been as outspoken as they could have been about the issue. On the other hand, I suspect that we’re going to see a fair number of bogus claims and lawsuits start to emerge from the woodwork, remember Steven J. Cook and his $10 million lawsuit against the church and Joseph Cardinal Bernadin for “alleged” abuse?

One book, Pedophiles & Priests published in 1996, suggests that the problem may not be as widespread as suggested by media coverage. (A summary of the books main points can be found here)

A dissenting view is offered up by reporter Jason Berry (with a forward by Andrew Greeley).

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

48

IIRC, in the last reiteration of “gay does not equal pedophile” thread here in the pit (the one calling MC [NOT Miss Creant] to the pit, specifically), it was established that a gay man is actually less likely to be a pedophile than a straight man. Source: Dr. Marshall, researcher extraordinaire. 'Bout a third of the way down the page.

49

The studies I have seen re gay priests: Wolf, in Gay Priests, surveyed 101 gay priests. Those ordainied before 1960 remember their seminary as having been on average 51% gay. Those ordained after 1981 say the seminaries were 70% gay. Wagner, in “Gay Catholic Priests: A Study in Cognitive and Affective Dissonance”, surveyed about 50 gay priests for about an hour and a half each. Half the Wagner sample, and 1/3 of the Wolf one, knew they were gay before ordination. Those who knew they were gay had sex while in the seminary, and some of their superiors knew it. About 1/3 of the priests’ superiors know they are gay. Thomas Fox, editor of The National Catholic Reporter, said “…in some cases there have been reports of predominatly gay seminaries and homosexual climates within them that became so pronounced that heterosexual semiarians felt uneasy and ultimately left.” Sipe, author of A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy, did a study on attitudes in the priesthood and concludes “Is this finding a reflection of a larger homosexual component among the clergy than in the general population? The answer is yes.”

A cursory investigation of the studies does not lead me to beleive that they are fatally flawed, though the self-reporting by gay priests of the percentage of gay priests is quite possibly influenced to some degree by wishful thinking. The evidence to me seems to indicate that the proportions of gays in the priestshood is likely higher than that of the population at large, and that they feel their ranks are growing. I am not, of course, drawing any correlation between child molestation and gays in the priesthood, but since I was aware of these studies re gays in the priesthood I thought I would bring them up.

50

In Canada the residential schools were run for the government by several religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, which has celebate priests, and the Angican and United Churches, both of which do not have celebate priests. All three ran into problems with abuse, and all three ran into problems with a lack of administrative responsibility.

Thus while I am the first to find religion promoted celebacy objectionable on moral grounds, I am far from convinced that celebacy has much if anything to do with child abuse.

Does religion attract warped individuals, and thus lead to increased levels of child abuse when such individuals are given responsibility over children, or is there a similar rate of abuse regardless of whether the abuser is religious or not? I’d be interested in seeing some figures on this.

51

I don’t understand why everyone is up in arms about this NOW, as opposed to say…the last 20 years? It’s not like we haven’t been hearing about priest-molesters who get shunted off to a different parish when discovered for years now… I know I certainly have, and have been thoroughly disgusted and amazed by it.

But the outcry comes when the church * finally * cops to a pattern?

Just hadda say that. Carry on.

52

Why ‘as opposed to’?

The main difference between now and a decade ago, say, is the availability of an extremely accessible forum such as this where we can come and rant about it. So you’re here, and we’re here, and it seems that there’s a lot more outrage now, simply because now there’s a place in your (online) community for expressing that outrage.

A pattern’s exactly what they haven’t copped to, nor have they copped to their institutional role in covering it up. According to J2P2 (thanks, beagledave :)), the only sins have been those of the individual priests that molested youths.

53

Even if priests had a disproportionate number of both homosexuals and pedophiles (which it looks like they might) it wouldn’t mean that gays are more likely to molest children or be pedophiles, it would just mean that that profession draws people from both groups. It makes sense, if you are a religious person and have sexual urges that are not allowed by your belief system, a life of abstinence would probably seem like a good idea.

54

Not by the Church itself, which hasn’t yet admitted to such a policy, as you point out:

The Roman Catholic Church regards the Pope as the spiritual leader of Christianity, not just the CEO of RCC, Inc.

You seem to be saying that, in balancing these roles, the Pope’s primary duty is to protect the Church’s material assets, rather than to do what, from a spiritual perspective, is clearly the right thing: to come clean about the Church’s role in protecting molesters within its ranks, to admit that it’s placed the preservation of its reputation above protecting its flock, and to publicly repent of these wrongs.

You reinforce the truth of Jesus’ comment that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matt. 6:24.)

I’ll cheerfully give respect to the office; I’d like to see the same from its current occupant. But I can’t have much respect for Karol Wojtyla anymore. And if you regard him as your spiritual leader, I would recommend Jesus’ words about the blind leading the blind.

I hardly think that the Pope has been directing this coverup in the manner of, say, Nixon and Watergate. But the time when he could legitimately say the molestations were a problem caused solely by a few bad-apple priests has gone forever. He said that anyway.

If he believes in what he preaches, and acts in consequence, then he will do absolutely nothing to investigate the Church’s coverup in this matter, and nothing to clean house, for he doesn’t believe any institutional problem exists. (Though how he could believe that without keeping his eyes tightly shut and his fingers in his hears, I have no idea.)

As you can see, I’m already giving him full ‘credit’ for that. So we don’t seem to have a problem.

55

Agree with you wholeheartedly, RTF. Respect must be earned. AFIAC, JPJr has done nought to earn my respect; however, he has done quite a lot to earn my disprespect.

On the issue at hand: I do not condemn individual Roman Catholics for their church heirarchy’s stonewalling. It would be dang nice of said heirarchy to no longer essentially condemn those whom they purportedly serve.

56

sigh

And sometimes I feel ashamed to admit to being a Catholic.

:frowning:

57

You shouldn’t.

I mean, lay Catholics have absolutely zero power to influence Rome’s decisions. Anyone paying attention knows it isn’t the fault of the people in the pews that the RCC is the way it is.

I’m not and will never be a Roman Catholic, for fundamental theological reasons not germane to this discussion. But I hate to see the RCC failing to do the right thing here, because no Christian organization in the world has the potential of speaking with the moral weight that the RCC can bring to bear, and if it squanders that moral authority by running and hiding on stuff like this, then it’ll be listened to less when it raises concerns about, say, economic justice. That’s why this matters to a Protestant such as me.

I don’t have any less respect for my friends who are Roman Catholics as a result of this - and I know this has to be a lot harder on people like you, Guin, who’ve grown up Roman Catholic, love their Church, and don’t want to be anything but Roman Catholic. Even while I’m railing at the Pope, I’m grieving for you and with you.

58

Well, let’s see if I can get this through this time.

Estilicon> Excuse me Father of Loki, you are the one accusing.

Father of Loki> I was? Maybe I made an error. Which statement(s) of mine are you referring to?

E> You should provide the evidence that the church as an isntitution with the Pope leading the way.

FoL> You 1st. Where’s your evidence I asked for to prove your accusation that the people posting on this thread are “seriously mistaken”? You must have some pretty compelling stuff, to make such a claim.

E> It seems that you are suffering from a little dose of “anti catholicism”

FoL> Are you meaning “anti RCism”? Maybe it’s you whose suffering a bit from “anti catholicism”.

E> , are you really comparing the Catholic church of the 21 century with the one of the 15 century? Are you comparing Borgia, Jules II, Urbano “the terrible” Clemente VII “the butcher of Casena” with Karol Wojtila?

FoL> Did I specifically state the church of the 15th C and those 16th C popes in my last post? Why did you choose those popes? Is it because they were so morally bankrupt they could make almost anyone look good? Or are you trying to set up a false argument?
How about some of the popes from other centuries as well? There’s a lot of them who were also real pieces of work. They were also interspersed with some half decent to very decent ones. (So history says.)

E> The problem with the church is that it’s not only an spiritual power but also was, and to a lesser extent is today, a temporal one.

FoL> Hmmmmm.

E> Jules the Second was a soldier because he was also a prince. He had to protect his domains.

FoL> And also protect his purchased papacy, and his indulgence money.

E> He was wrong but the moral standars of the age made things like that happen. A priest (bishop, pope, etc) is a human being he is raised in an age

FoL> I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Estilicon. Are you suggesting it’s their environment that’s ultimately responsible for their behavior?

E> , you want perfect people to fill the post

FoL> And you don’t want the same? Expecting it is something else.

E> but the truth is no one is.

FoL> Are you trying to say that we realistically shouldn’t expect perfect people to fill the posts? How about ‘decent people’?

59

I know you’re not directing this at us Catholics. And I appreciate that.

I guess I’m just ashamed because so many people are dealing with this the wrong way. My own mother, god love her, said, “Oh, they’re only complaining because it’s the Catholic church-like it doesn’t happen in other professions!” I tried to explain it’s not about the abuse itself, but the way the problem was dealt with. She won’t listen.

Or people saying, “Oh, it’s celibacy! See, it’s unnatural, and no wonder they do this, blah blah blah.” No, it’s NOT about that!

It just irritates me to no end. And the whole way the hierarchy is dealing with it-it makes me absolutely sick.

As Fr. Greeley said in his “Why I’m Still Catholic” essay, who do we remain loyal to-the church?
Or to God?
:frowning:

60

Estilicon> Excuse me Father of Loki, you are the one accusing.

Father of Loki> I am? Maybe I made an error for which I should apologize. Which statement(s) of mine are you referring to?

E> You should provide the evidence that the church as an isntitution with the Pope leading the way.

FoL> You 1st. Where’s your evidence I asked for to prove your accusation that the people posting on this thread are “seriously mistaken”? You must have some pretty compelling stuff, to make such a claim.

E> It seems that you are suffering from a little dose of “anti catholicism”

FoL> It seems you are wanting to label me personally with some term that will indirectly cast doubts on my comments. The “anti” false reasoning personal attack tactic is quite popular with some religious groups. Maybe we should apply the same term to my Basilian priest prof, too, for his comments.

E> , are you really comparing the Catholic church of the 21 century with the one of the 15 century? Are you comparing Borgia, Jules II, Urbano “the terrible” Clemente VII “the butcher of Casena” with Karol Wojtila?

FoL> Did I specifically state the 15th C church and those 16th C popes in my last post? Why did you choose those popes? Is it because they were so morally bankrupt they could make almost anyone look good? Or are you trying to set up a false argument?
How about some of the popes from other centuries as well? There’s a lot of them who were also real pieces of work. They were also interspersed with some half decent to very decent ones. At least, so history says.

E> The problem with the church is that it’s not only an spiritual power but also was, and to a lesser extent is today, a temporal one.

FoL> Hmmmmm.

E> Jules the Second was a soldier because he was also a prince. He had to protect his domains.

FoL> And also protect his purchased papacy, and his indulgence money. (So history says.)

E> He was wrong but the moral standars of the age made things like that happen. A priest (bishop, pope, etc) is a human being he is raised in an age

FoL> I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, Estilicon. Are you suggesting it’s their environment that’s ultimately to blame for their behavior?

E> , you want perfect people to fill the post

FoL> You don’t? Expecting it is something else.

E> but the truth is no one is.

FoL> Not sure what you’re suggesting.