Issues with the Catholic Church

[saundthorp]

Quite so Andrew. I would also hope for more tolerance towards traditional Catholic views.

Like the ones that covered up the activities of paedophile priests who seem to have been endemic in the Catholic church, or ban on contraception? I have no tolerance where those issues are concerned!
>:(

I'm not quite sure what the motivation is behind posts like that but one thing it does show is a lack of knowledge with regard to what the Church teaches

I actually meant my comment to apply to this discussion board rather than on the broader scene, but I don't see the connection between traditional Catholic views and the activities of paedophile priests!

You mentioned contraception; the Catholic Church doesn't ban contraception, it speaks out against the use of artificial contraception. There is a big difference and if you would like to learn more about the Catholic Church's teaching on the whole issue of marriage and birth control the Catholic Catechism is readily available on the web. Paragraphs 2360 to 2364 are particularly relevant.

Like the ones that covered up the activities of paedophile priests

I don't think the use of the term "covered up" is the appropriate one. To me it implies connivance. It implies that the local bishop connived with the paedophile priest so as to help them continue with their child abuse, because he had been careless enough to get found out, and moved him on so the abuse could continue in a new parish with the bishop's blessing. If a local bishop came to know about a case of child abuse his first reaction was to try and protect the Church as a whole from the scandal and the shame of it, That cannot be described as "covering up".
I wholeheartedly agree that is was an absolute scandal and a disgrace that bishops and other high officials in the church thought more about the reputation of the church than for the wellbeing of the abused child.

Nevertheless 60 and more years ago the real nature of paedophilia wasn't appreciated in the way it is today. All religious authorities reacted with shock and horror at accusations of child abuse. A bishop or church leader's first reaction, rightly or wrongly, of whatever religion, was to protect the church from the terrible scandal of such accusations. At that time the bishop, as everyone else, had no real understanding of paedophilia, so the action taken was to send for the priest, give him a good "talking to" and move him to another parish after getting a promise out of him to behave himself in future. With the knowledge we now have, we know that that response and treatment was totally inadequate.
As a result of the way child abuse was handled in the past the Catholic Church now has some of the best child protection measures of any organisation in the UK.
To judge the actions of bishops carried out 50 or 60 years ago using the knowledge of today is not a fair way to draw conclusions about the issue.

who seem to have been endemic in the Catholic church,

The insinuation that child abuse is only a Catholic problem, or that it was  handled any differently in the Catholic Church to any other church just doesn't stand up to examination. 60 years ago there were just as many snidy remarks about vicars and choirboys as there were about priests and altar boys.
If you care to put, "Child abuse in the Protestant Church" into Google you will get a much more balanced view than one gets from the British media.

You say you have no tolerance on the issue of child abuse in the Catholic Church. Righteous indignation isn't the preserve of non-Catholics with regard to what is thought about evil perverted men who betray Christ in the foulest way imaginable. Paedophile priests stab in the back 95% of their fellow Catholic priests who work diligently and faithfully for the Lord.

[Martin]

I don't think the use of the term "covered up" is the appropriate one. To me it implies connivance. It implies that the local bishop connived with the paedophile priest so as to help them continue with their child abuse, because he had been careless enough to get found out, and moved him on so the abuse could continue in a new parish with the bishop's blessing.

No, the term, 'covered up' doesn't imply that at all.  It implies that the Roman Catholic church were concerned about the embarrassment of the crime going public.  It implies that the Roman Catholic church didn't see the crime as something very wrong, something which needed to be stopped as an imperative, but rather more like a lapse of judgement, something that might go away with some low-level admonishment and a new start.  It shows a reckless regard for the safety of children and a complete disregard for the law.

The fact that you come out with this sort of statement, saundthorp, shows me that you are behaving in exactly the same way as the Roman Catholic church has.  You seek to obscure and downplay the blame the church should be taking.  Rather than this protective attitude, which has been the cause of so much of the problem in the first place, the Roman Catholic church needs to hold its hands up and address the problems of hierarchy, power and the tendency to obscure and deceive.

What was it that Jesus said about millstones?  There is a collective refusal to admit responsibility that makes everyone who subscribes to it one who causes harm to these little ones.

I do agree with you though that this sort of problem isn't confined to the Roman Catholic church.  In any church where there is a chain of authority, where ministers/clergy/leaders can get themselves into a position where others fear them or refrain from questioning them simply because of their position.  In any situation where people are used to hiding and obscuring the truth for  the sake of 'the good name of the organisation'.  In any situation where little people, without authority, feel powerless.  In any situation where children are taught not to question. In those situations an invitation is being made to abusers.

[Boudi]

I too would agree with Martin in that the Roamn Catholic Church didn't act appropiately, and it's not easy to just say 'this was many years ago, and we've learned a lot since then'.  Wasn't there a recent leak that showed the church was still doing its best in more recent times to cover up, and instructed it's staff to do so as well.

If there is unfounded condemnation, then fine, but when there is still an axe to grind it becomes harder to bring it under the same blanket!

[JJ]

Hello Saundthorp - I'm not sure what you are saying in the first part of your post, are you saying that it wasn't a cover up as that would be connivance?  What would be the term you would use?  Embarrassment or something like that?

You then move on to say that it was dreadful - but that the authorities had no understanding of the seriousness of the matter.  Is that right?

I agree with you - things have changed a lot even in the last seven years, particularly since the Soham murders.  And yes it's not just some RC priests - not at all!  Abusers come from every background - even the police.

[Boudi]

Indeed, and I did mean to mention in my original post that there are many people from many faith backgrounds and none who take the opportunity to abuse their positions of power.  However, it doesn't wipe out the fact that the church has been fouind to be seriously lacking to such an extent that it is sadly one of the aspects brought to the front of one's mind when this particular church is mentioned.

[AndyHB]

Reading some of the reports that have come from these events, as well as through discussions with RC's I know, I would say that the use of 'cover-up' is perfectly acceptable.  After all, for decades the church simply shifted priests who committed this kind of atrocity from one parish to another, even from diocese to diocese, without informing the new parishioners of the situation behind the move.

[ecuworrier]

Nevertheless 60 and more years ago the real nature of paedophilia wasn't appreciated in the way it is today. All religious buse. A bishop or church leader's first reaction, rightly or wrongly, of whatever religion, was to protect the church from the terrible scandal of such accusations.

who seem to have been endemic in the Catholic church,

what i am glad to see is that saundthorp after many previous opportunities to discuss these issues on the previous board that you are now aking that opportunity i welcome that!...

what i don't quite get is that you seem to be taking this rather personally...and defending someything ... it is possible to praise the good whilst recriminating the bad... the problem i have with the whole sad sorry saga and your description of it is .... this ... it was money bags that forced the hand of the catholic church in local litigious surrounding ie USA where it was possible through the legal system to address the abomination of the actions of those individuals that acted...

kids who were abused in some third world countries are not so lucky ...  so where is the look out for them?

during the course of the twentieth century.... what did emerge is recourse on a legal frameworks.... sadly dthe church has been ddddddddddddreally slow to drag its footprints on these issues....

because the bible is abit apparently less than visible on the rights and wrongs of child sexual abuse at least as a listed misdemeanour???!!!!
 does not change though the absolute horror of a situation that causes life  destroyuing consequences... now that is nothing new either...... me i don't defend what is not rightchild sex abuse is not new to humanity it is not something that came up... during the C20
the severe life destroying and development arresting impact is no less or more a serious factor inthe C20 if anything the lack of address over a period of 2000 years of church history is a REAL SCANDAL... is GOD indifferent? i don't believe so.... but the absolutely pathetic response to well did they really hide things? .........they certainly failed to... they did not take that fangs out of the abusers and that is the serious unchristian response that begs many questions..... what has the chuirch been doing as a human organisation for all this time? 

BIG QUESTIONS likethe question.... what is Forgiveness and what is the role of trhe confessional there for...and giving a priest a new start as a priest is putting an inordinate faith in something... was it GOD   what were they thinking of.... me i despair ... i do not see the presence of Jesus in their mustered efforts but i do see a humanness that demonstrates a loyalty to something....  people give theri hard earned pennies to these people  for thier upkeep in good faith....  sorry but a lot of things has gone wrong and the ddlack of effort over 2000 years to address basic human Sanctity is yes it is a real SCANDAL trust the church ? to be perfect? a tall order
..trust the church to do the right thing.... ?  whoo boy we live in hope sometimes we see what we like .. but is iit with GOD?

 i trust GOD and too many people feel let down cos thy assumed it was the same thing chiurch and family and GOD and the pope and stuff... me i  well GOD IS GOOD lets talk about GOD ...  me i don't defend what is not right... in the church the chrch should at least be the vehicle that carries GOD and in that carrying we should be thankful and at times really moved... but please don't muddle GOD in with a bunch of clerics GOD is GOOD folks is folks


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndyHB]

because the bible is abit apparently less than visible on the rights and wrongs of child sexual abuse at least as a listed misdemeanour does not change though the absolute horror of a situation that causes life  destroyuing consequences...

Not sure that it is 'less than visible' on this issue, ecu.  I realise that it doesn't refer specifically to child abuse of the paedophilic sort (but then when does it refer specifically to a lot of stuff), it does make very clear that - along with widows and foreigners - children are to be protected, supported, and built up.

[AndrewF]

If it were limited to events of 50 or 60 years ago I might agree with your comments Sandthorpe, but sadly it isn't. This 'connivance' of moving PP's from one parish to another and not telling anyone about the problem in the previous parish continued well into the 90's at least, and I also remember something about the leak that Boudi mentioned.
Furthermore, even as long back as the 50's & 60's peadophilia was illegal, and the (civil) authorities should have been informed - even if the Archbishop or Vatican wasn't. They were not, and therefore it is also a cover-up.

[saundthorp]

It implies that the Roman Catholic church didn't see the crime as something very wrong, something which needed to be stopped as an imperative, but rather more like a lapse of judgement, something that might go away with some low-level admonishment and a new start.  It shows a reckless regard for the safety of children and a complete disregard for the law.

Martin, I don't see how you can accuse the Church of not taking the problem of child abuse seriously when the the local bishops went to such lengths to stop the issue going public. They were terrified of the abuse and knew quite well what a stain it would be on the reputation of the Church, because it was such a dreadful thing.
I agree that certain high level clerics did show a reckless disregard for the safety of children by putting the reputation of the Church above that of the shattered lives of abused children.
In the past few years great strides have been made within the Church to try and make sure the problem doesn't occure again.
Child protection measures have been issued in all parishes throughout Scotland, England and Wales. In Ireland the Vatican appointed a high level commission who are, at this moment, going through the Church in Ireland with a fine tooth comb.
I have lost count of the number of times the Pope has expressed great sorrow and has promised to do do everything in his power to put an end to it. The Archbishop of Westminster has also said on several occasions how ashamed he is of priests who can do such terrible things to children.
The Church is confronting the issue with great determination.

[tranchiebabe]

The Catholic heirachy are cuplable for not turning over the paedophile priests in their midst to the police. Benny and his mates are still making excuses. They should resign the whole stinking evil lot of them!

[JJ]

Martin, I don't see how you can accuse the Church of not taking the problem of child abuse seriously when the the local bishops went to such lengths to stop the issue going public. They were terrified of the abuse and knew quite well what a stain it would be on the reputation of the Church, because it was such a dreadful thing.
I agree that certain high level clerics did show a reckless disregard for the safety of children by putting the reputation of the Church above that of the shattered lives of abused children.
In the past few years great strides have been made within the Church to try and make sure the problem doesn't occure again.

I'm not sure whether this is playing with words really - it's a bit like saying that it's OK for a family to hide a perpetrator of a crime because it will bring shame on the family, just move the criminal elsewhere and hope it doesn't happen again.  That, to me, is irresponsibility and weaselly behaviour.

Having said that, I agree that now:

Child protection measures have been issued in all parishes throughout Scotland, England and Wales. In Ireland the Vatican appointed a high level commission who are, at this moment, going through the Church in Ireland with a fine tooth comb.
I have lost count of the number of times the Pope has expressed great sorrow and has promised to do do everything in his power to put an end to it. The Archbishop of Westminster has also said on several occasions how ashamed he is of priests who can do such terrible things to children.
The Church is confronting the issue with great determination.

I have seen it happen twice in my working life - once before the issue became public when the priest was moved on, and once after when the priest was sacked, and I'm not even a Roman Catholic. Just worked with a few priests for a while.

[tranchiebabe]

I am hopeful that Catholics will not revere the church and its priests as they seem to have done in the past, and challenge anything they perceive as wrong. I suspect many Catholics already put two fingers up to some of the nonsense spouted by the church, especially where contraception in concerned.

Our neighbours are practising Catholics, but obviously do their own thing. They got married last year, their two children are 11 and 8.  

[saundthorp]

JJ,

You then move on to say that it was dreadful - but that the authorities had no understanding of the seriousness of the matter.  Is that right?

60 odd years ago I don't think anyone had a complete grasp of the real nature of peadophilia. I think it was regarded as the actions of someone who couldn't control his urge for sex. In fact peadophilia is a deep seated unnatural disorder from which it is very difficult to overcome.
Some people have blaimed the requirement of celibacy for child abuse. This thinking again displays a lack of knowledge of the true nature of peadophilia.
If a priest, or any person for that matter, has a disordered sexual desire, marriage will not the cure it. Experiencing the redemptive power of Christ in one's fallen sexuality is the cure. Getting married will only involve the transfer of a man's unnatural sexual desire to his wife and possibly his children.

[tranchiebabe]

Getting married will only involve the transfer of a man's unnatural sexual desire to his wife and possibly his children.

Quite possibly, but it is not desirable for a belief system to force celibacy on its priests.