That argument doesn’t hold up given the extra requirements placed on priests in order to perform that role. One particularly pertinent one is clerical celibacy: a priest cannot perform their sacramental duties if they have committed adultery, unless they have made the appropriate penance and demonstrated contrition. Raping children wholly contravenes that.
Would it be fair to say that most parishioners expect their priests to adhere to the rules they swore to uphold when taking the responsibility of priesthood in order to perform the sacraments?
That said, according to the wiki, there is an “indelible character… constituted as sacred ministers by the sacrament of holy orders”. So luckily the sacrament is still valid even if the priest was contravening their duties, else they could have damned anyone in the congregation to hell should they die without the Eucharist or proper Last Rites.
But they lecture their congregation (and higher up, the rest of us) from their supposedly superior moral position, or at least moral understanding, all the time.
And the real problem comes when the civil authorities, like in Ireland, act as if there was this moral edge. Remember how the Vatican ranted at the Belgian authorities getting evidence of the abuse and the cover up?
Hell, in Chicago a Catholic cop arrested Lenny Bruce for saying irreverent things about the Pope and Mary. Do you think his local priest or bishop told him to stop doing this?
Sure they did.
The scandal isn’t that priests were abusers, it was that their bosses, trying to make the church seem like a paragon of virtue, cared more about the image of the church than the rights of the children. And then blame it all on the gays.
Yes it does. To say that Church doctrine requires priests to behave morally, which it does, is not to say that Church doctrine requires lay Catholics to assume that priests are behaving morally, which it doesn’t.
The doctrinal provision that you mention (and that Cecil discusses in the column I linked to previously) about the “indelible character” of the sacramental performance irrespective of the state of grace or otherwise of the sacramental officiant exists for this very reason. Theologians have always known damn well that there would inevitably be some bad people serving as priests, and consequently they have never officially required church members to believe that a priest must be a good person simply by virtue of his office.
Yup, that’s part of their duties. Are priests required by Church doctrine to instruct the faithful on how to be good people? Yes. Are priests required by Church doctrine to strive to be good people themselves, in order to carry out their duties most effectively? Yes. Are Catholics required by Church doctrine to take it for granted that any particular priest actually is a good person? Fuck no.
Damn straight: that’s one of the reasons a civilized society should have strict separation of church and state. If it’s not doctrinally required even for observant Catholics to take it for granted that Church representatives always behave morally, it’s positively idiotic for public servants to do so when acting in their official capacities.
Except a priest’s role is to espouse contrition and reconciliation as necessary to salvation. A church member cannot, without some degree of cognitive dissonance, hold that they are confessing their sins to Christ via an unrepentant sinner. I know I’ve seen priests attend confession, but I still can’t assume that it was the same sin each time. If I recall correctly, Jesus held hypocrites in open contempt.
Now you seem to be talking about what a Catholic layperson should do if they know that a particular priest is guilty of a particular sin and has not embraced repentance and amendment of life. That’s another question. All I’m talking about here is the fact that Catholic doctrine, specifically the doctrine of priests acting in persona Christi, does not require Catholics to believe that priests are morally superior to laypeople.
Yes, but let’s return to what sisu said about “most Catholics”.
Here are the facts they’re armed with:
They are required to believe that in order to be saved from hellfire, they will be talking to Christ in human form and must consciously reject sin and take action to prevent themselves from committing the sin again. The priest they are talking to has taken a vow of celibacy.
From there, does it seem reasonable that most people will expect the priest to behave in an exemplary fashion?
That said, it was divorced from its original context, where the priests are not meant to be a theological authority (on gay marriage, abortion, contraception) other than from their increased knowledge of the Bible. Yet they are required to have a degree and undergo training at a seminary. They’re also not permitted to administer sacraments if they espouse views which contradict the Vatican’s, as evidenced by the excommunication of Call to Action members. These are things that the laity are aware of.
I was going to suggest that that is precisely what needs to happen: a Second Reformation. Somebody needs to start a church that is theologically similar to the RCC, but with married clergy and a more liberal view on reproductive issues.
And then I remembered that they already did. They’re called Episcopalians.
Correct but millions of people will still belong to the Catholic Church, which brings us back to the question “What is to be done?”
People have attacked me for my view that being involved in you kids’ life may stop abuse or at the least catch it early. I still stand by this but please note I have always said MAY not will.
This stupid idea [seemingly coming from non Catholics] that people think that priests are some kind of holy man beyond what is human is dumb. I have never met a catholic who does not understand that a priest is a man who is as human and flawed as any other human. I see this with some Evangelical churches but not so much with Catholics. yes we think the Pope is pretty cool but again he is a man.
Catholics are not really big on the hell thing.
Someone picked me up on the we/me thing, simple I am one person who is a me who happens to be part of something hence the we. Is it that hard to understand?
Voyager’s point about denial is a valid point and well said. This is our biggest issue, there are none so blind who cannot see.
Boyo Jum asked “How do you maintain vigilance of priest placement?” Well that is not what I said, I was talking about placing my children and others in situations that could lead to abusive behavior. Just like I do when my kids go to swim school, scouts, gym, tutoring etc. Taking care and practicing constant vigilance is the key.
I feel pain for those that have been abused and maintain my stance and activism that the perpetrators and those that covered it up must have the full weight of the law placed upon them. Do not think I talk form a theoretical position as I was once abused, not by a priest but a teacher in a state school. I get it, I understand it.
I was one of those who asked the me/we thing. The reason is that you said in post #92, “Well I will continue to push for change from within…” And you have repeatedly failed to explain what you are doing in pursuit of that, instead replying with generalities about what needs to be done, or what the church needs to do.
If you are not personally taking action, then you are simply choosing to believe as an article of faith that Church officials are doing the right thing.
As to the second point, you DID say, word of word, in post #95, “Vigilance on priest placements.” This was in attempting to respond to my question about how are you personally taking actions to push for change from within.
I ask you again – what are you personally doing to push for change from within? That’s what you claimed you were doing.
I am not going to go into detail about what I am doing but rest assured that being a lay member of the church and also actively participating in the day to day running of activities my voice and actions are heard. Associations always listen to the noisy people and I am one.
The vigilance and priest placements was in regards to doing a background check on any new priest that appears in my parish. I will contact people who have had dealings with him and if I feel that there is reason for concern it will be raised with the parish group and in one case directly with the priest in question. I am friends with the local PD and would also raise concerns with them if it felt a bit for a better word “iffy”.
Sorry Jim, not Jum but that is about as specific as I will get in an internet forum.
In other words, you’re doing absolutely nothing that you haven’t always done.
Apparently you intend to check out new priests in the future? Have you ever done it yet? Would you expect that, if you called the rectory where the priest used to be before moving to your parish, that anyone there would tell a total stranger on the phone that the priest was suspected of abusing children? Just who and what would you ask that you could have any reasonable expectation of candid and complete reply?
It has been demonstrated time and time again for hundreds of years that the Church doesn’t listen to its lay membership.
Let me make a suggestion – get together with your fellow parishioners and tell the Church that you are going to withhold all money from them until they enact certain practices and make themselves and their actions transparent to independent observers. That is the only single act that might draw a response – though the response might be to close down the parish rather than submit to oversight from its own parishioners.
Well, I’ll jump on the “blame the media” bandwagon for this.
Why is this not front page news on every paper/website in the US? This is way more important than some retarded Florida “stand your ground” law violation/adherence. WAY more important than some assholes in robes deciding about a health care plan.
Why sweep this one under the rug, newsies? This could be the turning point in showing evidence in a humongous child-molestation scam only protected by a bunch of other robed assholes who like to carry incense and useless fantasy books.
Bringing this to light is one thing, prosecuting is another. Let’s prosecute this up to the fucking (and I mean a child-fucking supporting papal git) real man’s laws that usurp these fantasies and turn the Vatican into a garage sale. Fuck, we could make enough money off a photograph of the Sistine Chapel sold to a dumb-fuck bible-humping, statue-building country who we told that “it’s been blessed” by the (hopefully) soon to be executed pope to handle our deficit.
If we can’t do that, dropping the ceiling of said chapel on North Korea would suit me fine. Of course, the wannabe shits who swear it’s real would be claiming that it’s “god’s work.”
My response is not limited to you alone, myx, but this is a good opportunity to say this…
Why post such inane comments? What’s the value of trying so hard to prove how hopelessly world-weary and sneeringly cynical you are, as if a prize awaits you if you outscore everyone else in apathetic insouciance? Perhaps you were trying (unsuccessfully) to deliver a bit of sardonic satire, but the whole “this is supposed to be surprising or something?” and “That’s not really news” attitude is extremely pretentious and off-putting!
This thread was sparked by the news in a Dutch paper about a man who was castrated as a boy without his consent “to cure his homosexual tendencies” after being put in a catholic’s boys home and being vocal about the sexual abuse by priests he had suffered.
The paper published this news after the large Dutch parliamentary Inquest into chruch-sanctioned sexual abuse had been presented and this particular information had not been included. That was rather painful for the inquest committee, who had said they had been complete and thorough.
Anyway, the newspaper article led to addictional questions and additional inquests into the matter. Today, some results have been published. They point both ways.
In the fifties up until the seventies, castration was thought of by Catholics to be a viable cure for homosexuality. There are records of a bishop urging at least two surgeons to perform castrations for such cases. The catholics didn’t differ much from the general population in that regard, though, most people at the time thougth vaguely that castration would cure sexual deviance. But of course Church officials were far more likely to seek out and condemn homosuality and demand for it to be “cured”. Not just in boys, but in adults too. Strangely enough, castration was never advocated as a way to make priests less vulnerable to the temptation :dubious:
At least in the Netherlands, priests were not always just protected and placed elsewhere after accusations of sexual misconduct. The enquiry found evidence of at least 54 cases where molesting priests were legally prosecuted.
Another interesting article in the paper inspired by this scandal was that of a boy who studied to be a priest in the fifties. He was never (sexually) abused, but he describes the culture and atmosphere in such seminaries as thorougly sick and repressing. A hotbed for neurosis, body-hostile, hostile to normal human relationships. And most of all, hostile to developing a normal sense of one’s own sexuality and the responsibilities that come with it. Better to call it evil, dwell on it and project that evil on others. After reading that, it is actually a miracle the Church hasn’t made more childmolestors than it did.