Anti-Catholic Attack

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyleboerner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If your family is using the fallibility of individuals against the Church, you can use the family analogy to clarify the issue for them.

Would your mother for instance, disown you for the mistakes that you make, or break up your family because one of you has done something wrong? Most mothers would not, they would say no, this is my family and we are keeping it together. The mistakes do not somehow change the reality that a family exists. The family has a value that transcends the mistakes of individuals.

Pretty much the same with the Church. We all sin, but the Church is the Church, and is beautiful despite the sinners.
 
I recommend checking out George Weigel’s The Courage to be Catholic. He documents much of the Church’s response to The Crisis, and addresses many of these issues.
 
Here’s the page I got the article from so many moons ago. It’s only accessible to subscribers now, however.

Here are the key data for the article, in case it can be located elsewhere:

Title: From ‘Sin’ and ‘Compulsion’ to ‘Crime’: Trying to understand the crisis of the past 25 years

Author: Father Rick Malloy, S.J.

Publication: The Priest

Date: 2/1/2011
See if this is the same article, it looks to be.

From Sin and Compulsion to Crime
 
  1. No one said that because this happens throughout society, that reduces its seriousness. What we are saying is that the media RARELY reports these incidences, but jumps on anything about the Catholic Church, to an extent that is blatantly anti-Catholic and also distorts the facts. Pedophiles are found wherever there are children, including but not limited to the denominations.
I agree with you, I apologize for not being clear ; I find it much easier to converse with another than rant by myself:confused:
  1. These cases are not happening because there is very intense screening being done in seminaries now. Much more is known about pedophilia and these people have a difficult time hiding within a seminary. At the time, the 1960’s or before, or slightly after, the seminaries were not aware of the problem of homosexuality and/or pedophilia, and so, had little screening for it. I have read several essays stating that the Church was under attack by homosexual activists who joined the priesthood with the sole INTENTION of making the Church look bad. I am not sure if any of that is true, but I do know that a pedophile would not be operating within a seminary today.
At least from what I have been learned from a few reliable (active and retired) pastors in Chicago, that is correct, at least as it concerned a local seminary.
 
I agree that I think priests and nuns should have the right to marry, but the child abuse thing is ridiculous.

Most child molesters arent catholic or have any religion anyways. If you compare the number of catholic priests who molest to the number of NON-catholic people who molest, you will find that people have no reason to be freaking out at the church.

It is NOT the churches fault that the priest decided to molest.
The church had nothing to do with it, UNLESS after he molests, they cover it up and move him to a different church. Then yes, the church would be responsible and immoral, and even then, its not necessarily the church or God’s fault, its the men in the church who allowed it to go on.

Just because you’re a doctor or a priest or a cop doesn’t mean you’re perfect. There will always be wolves in sheeps clothing.

That is not God’s fault, or the (true) churches fault.

It is mans fault.
 
Does any amount of corrective accurate information stop antisemitic people from criticizing and demeaning Jews and their culture and their religion and their nation in the Middle East?

Do you see what I mean?

The way many Jews handle their situation is simply to associate with non-Jews as little as possible.

Why don’t you do the same?

Why are you associating so much with people who clearly don’t like you and don’t respect you, and who hate your religion?

Believe me, no one who liked you and respected you would say all these mean things about your religion right in front of you.

No amount of corrective accurate information is going to make these hater like you, respect you, or respect your religious faith.

I know we are now in the Age of the New Apologetics, and we are always being led to believe that we must constantly be in Church Militant Combat Mode, with our combat boots on, and our Apologetics Books under our arms, always ready to engage with doubters and critics of the Faith. But that can get wearisome. We have to have out own life of peace sometimes too.

Consider these verses from the Gospels:

Luke 4:28-30: “All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him [Jesus] out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.”

Matt. 14:23 “After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone…”

Matt. 16:23: "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”

Jesus didn’t always argue with everyone. Sometimes he just slipped away. Sometimes he sent other people away so he could be alone. In the case of Peter, Jesus YELLED at Peter, and basically blasted him to H*ll, in a manner of speaking.

If you have to say anything to these haters, just say this: “If you want to stay here [or if you want me to to stay here], you are going to have to keep your hatred of the Catholic Faith to yourself. I’m not listening to this ********!” I would get angry. I would “go off” on them. That will have more effect on them that a bunch of corrective accurate information that they are just going to ignore anyway.

Imagine if these same people were standing around casually belittling your child right in front of you. Would you in that case try to give these people corrective accurate information, such as “Well, you see, my 8 year old son is not a useless piece of human flesh as you say, but really is quite a good little boy.” No no. In that case you’d need to blast those people to H*LL. Or leave. Or both. My basic point: You can’t reason with Haters.
 
You make some good points, but I must take exception to this part:
Does any amount of corrective accurate information stop antisemitic people from criticizing and demeaning Jews and their culture and their religion and their nation in the Middle East?
The vast majority of those who oppose the nation-state of Israel for its lousy treatment of the Palestinians harbour no prejudice toward the Jewish people. If you want to maintain even a facade of intellectual honesty, you’re going to have to cease insinuating that such posters as yours truly are in any way, shape, or form on the same page as the Nazis. I’m not listening to this rubbish.

(I’m not being at all facetious here, but entirely serious.)
 
So many good, valid responses so far.

One thing I did not see mentioned was the evolving view or the psychiatric community in regards to the problem.
Remember that many of these abuses occurred 30 - 40 - 50 years ago.

I can’t quote specific resources (perhaps someone else can) but it is my understanding that there was a time when psychiatry felt this was a treatable and curable condition. As a result when a priest was found to have committed one of this act, he was removed from pastoral ministry and sent for treatment. After a time he was released from treatment “cured” (according to the understanding of the doctors at that time). So there was no reason to keep him from pastoral duties any longer…

Of course this does not apply to every case in every diocese everywhere…But this, along with other considerations can help to explain why there were some serious missteps by those in charge.

Peace
James
Outstanding reference James!
 
If your family is using the fallibility of individuals against the Church, you can use the family analogy to clarify the issue for them.

Would your mother for instance, disown you for the mistakes that you make, or break up your family because one of you has done something wrong? Most mothers would not, they would say no, this is my family and we are keeping it together. The mistakes do not somehow change the reality that a family exists. The family has a value that transcends the mistakes of individuals.

Pretty much the same with the Church. We all sin, but the Church is the Church, and is beautiful despite the sinners.
Very interesting perspective Clem - thank you!
 
I agree that I think priests and nuns should have the right to marry, but the child abuse thing is ridiculous.

Most child molesters arent catholic or have any religion anyways. If you compare the number of catholic priests who molest to the number of NON-catholic people who molest, you will find that people have no reason to be freaking out at the church.

It is NOT the churches fault that the priest decided to molest.
The church had nothing to do with it, UNLESS after he molests, they cover it up and move him to a different church. Then yes, the church would be responsible and immoral, and even then, its not necessarily the church or God’s fault, its the men in the church who allowed it to go on.

Just because you’re a doctor or a priest or a cop doesn’t mean you’re perfect. There will always be wolves in sheeps clothing.

That is not God’s fault, or the (true) churches fault.

It is mans fault.
Great note - wolves in sheeps clothing!
 
Does any amount of corrective accurate information stop antisemitic people from criticizing and demeaning Jews and their culture and their religion and their nation in the Middle East?

Do you see what I mean?

The way many Jews handle their situation is simply to associate with non-Jews as little as possible.

Why don’t you do the same? Because I know that Christianity does not practice exclusionism. “They”, on the other hand, do (historically) practice exclusionist behavior at the slightest hint that someone slightly differs in a particular stance in faith…and they’re Christians. Why they happen to choose to associate with me knowing full well that I am, and will always be, Catholic, can at times be bewildering.

Why are you associating so much with people who clearly don’t like you and don’t respect you, and who hate your religion?

Believe me, no one who liked you and respected you would say all these mean things about your religion right in front of you.

No amount of corrective accurate information is going to make these hater like you, respect you, or respect your religious faith. *Then why do people evangelize? Weren’t some of the greatest Catholic Saints also some of the greatest Christian condemners? *

I know we are now in the Age of the New Apologetics, and we are always being led to believe that we must constantly be in Church Militant Combat Mode, with our combat boots on, and our Apologetics Books under our arms, always ready to engage with doubters and critics of the Faith. But that can get wearisome. We have to have out own life of peace sometimes too.

Consider these verses from the Gospels:

Luke 4:28-30: “All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him [Jesus] out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.”

Matt. 14:23 “After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone…”

Matt. 16:23: "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”

Jesus didn’t always argue with everyone. Sometimes he just slipped away. Sometimes he sent other people away so he could be alone. In the case of Peter, Jesus YELLED at Peter, and basically blasted him to H*ll, in a manner of speaking.

If you have to say anything to these haters, just say this: “If you want to stay here [or if you want me to to stay here], you are going to have to keep your hatred of the Catholic Faith to yourself. I’m not listening to this ********!” I would get angry. I would “go off” on them. That will have more effect on them that a bunch of corrective accurate information that they are just going to ignore anyway. * You bring up a great point - acknowledging my displeasure with their comments as opening to what proceeds from my mouth thereafter. *

Imagine if these same people were standing around casually belittling your child right in front of you. Would you in that case try to give these people corrective accurate information, such as “Well, you see, my 8 year old son is not a useless piece of human flesh as you say, but really is quite a good little boy.” No no. In that case you’d need to blast those people to H*LL. Or leave. Or both. My basic point: You can’t reason with Haters.
  • I truly know where you are coming from; I do, however, believe that reasoning can be applied to the haters. I would much rather have the surplus of friends and family members in my company, rather than a shortage of ‘almost percecct’ friends and family. There have been friends/family who used to belong to the hater crowd, but are no longer after achieving a greater understanding (which took many many years, no doubt) *
Thank you for your feedback
 
Thank you Kbrigan for the book reference and Trebor/The Real Juliane for pointing me in the right direction to the article by Father Rick Malloy (I printed it out and intend to read it later tonight). God Bless
 
There are some important points made in the thread but I think you all miss one point, which is the most important one. Clearly, child abuse happens all over the world, and probably the catholic abusers are few and far between - compared to the non-catholic ones. (Not that this would be an excuse). Cover-ups also happen all the time, everywhere. Where there are guilty people, they all try to escape discovery, with all kinds of nefarious means.

The actual problem is that it happened within the catholic church, which proclaims, loud and clear, that the church is the foremost arbiter and defender of morality, that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that makes the church inerrant in the case of morals. This is why the events were so shocking.

Now before someone would argue that these were all indivuduals who did the abuse and conducted the cover-up, that is correct. But the church is the sum of its members, from the pope, down to the bishops and so on, which makes the problem much more serious. Was there not one of the upper echelons in the church who was aware of what happened, and who was guided by the Holy Spirit to come clean in true and just moral indignation, and stop the shuffling of the offending priests? Apperently none.

So it is not just the abuse which is the problem, and not just the cover up which is so scandalous, it is the credibility of the whole church which came into question.
 
There are some important points made in the thread but I think you all miss one point, which is the most important one. Clearly, child abuse happens all over the world, and probably the catholic abusers are few and far between - compared to the non-catholic ones. (Not that this would be an excuse). Cover-ups also happen all the time, everywhere. Where there are guilty people, they all try to escape discovery, with all kinds of nefarious means.

The actual problem is that it happened within the catholic church, which proclaims, loud and clear, that the church is the foremost arbiter and defender of morality, that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that makes the church inerrant in the case of morals. This is why the events were so shocking.

Now before someone would argue that these were all indivuduals who did the abuse and conducted the cover-up, that is correct. But the church is the sum of its members, from the pope, down to the bishops and so on, which makes the problem much more serious. Was there not one of the upper echelons in the church who was aware of what happened, and who was guided by the Holy Spirit to come clean in true and just moral indignation, and stop the shuffling of the offending priests? Apperently none.

So it is not just the abuse which is the problem, and not just the cover up which is so scandalous, it is the credibility of the whole church which came into question.
And that assessment is an unfair one. Please read the article linked in post #23 of this thread and let us know what you think. 🙂
 
And that assessment is an unfair one.
Why? Which part of it is incorrect? I merely observed what the church claims for itself, inerracy in the case of faith and morals, guided by the Holy Spirit. The events do not seem to support it.
Please read the article linked in post #23 of this thread and let us know what you think.
I did. Here is a short analysis:

The constantly repeated charge of cover-up masks the fact that many bishops and religious superiors were following the standard operating procedures of the times.

Not much of an argument. Others did it, too. Bah, humbug.

In 1952, 1966, 1974 or 1982, neither parents nor police were publicly decrying how bishops handled these matters. In those times, if journalists knew about it, they weren‟t saying any more than they did about John Kennedy‟s multiple marital infidelities.

These are not the same, not by a long shot. Kennedy’s escapades had nothing to do with his competency as president.
  1. a justifiable fear of gravely harming the Church by being open about this issue, or 3) an, in hindsight, bewildering incompetency? Probably a combination of the second (and in their defense, note how these revelations have hurt the Church) and third (no one suggests the bishops did anything right).
It is not a defense that the “fear became reality”. The church is the defender of morality, and coming clean immediately would have strengthened the church’s position. Just like in the case of Clinton, his affair with Monica Lewinsky would have been shrugged off if he admitted it up front.

In 1990, Judgment, a good and balanced movie starring Keith Carradine and Blythe Danner presented the excruciatingly difficult choices bishops confronted. In one scene, the bishop wants to reach out pastorally to the family of children abused by a priest character based on the real life Gilbert Gauthe. The lawyers tell the bishop that, if he meets with the family, he will be admitting guilt. He is told that he can speak with the family or save the diocese from financial ruin. But he cannot do both.

Looks like money was more important then the spiritual aim of the church.

Most of them did the best they could with the resources and within the cultural mores available at the time. The problem is: what do we do now and in the future?

Is the church supposed to be influenced by the cultural mores of the time? You gotta be kidding me.
 
There are some important points made in the thread but I think you all miss one point, which is the most important one. Clearly, child abuse happens all over the world, and probably the catholic abusers are few and far between - compared to the non-catholic ones. (Not that this would be an excuse). Cover-ups also happen all the time, everywhere. Where there are guilty people, they all try to escape discovery, with all kinds of nefarious means.

The actual problem is that it happened within the catholic church, which proclaims, loud and clear, that the church is the foremost arbiter and defender of morality, that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that makes the church inerrant in the case of morals. This is why the events were so shocking.

Now before someone would argue that these were all indivuduals who did the abuse and conducted the cover-up, that is correct. But the church is the sum of its members, from the pope, down to the bishops and so on, which makes the problem much more serious. Was there not one of the upper echelons in the church who was aware of what happened, and who was guided by the Holy Spirit to come clean in true and just moral indignation, and stop the shuffling of the offending priests? Apperently none.

So it is not just the abuse which is the problem, and not just the cover up which is so scandalous, it is the credibility of the whole church which came into question.
You are quite right in this which is why, in addition to cleaning up the matter, in addition to defending the Church from unfair or malicious attacks etc…In addition to doing all that we can to rebuild…we need to (using OT phrasing) don sackcloth and ashes in penance. We need to pray fervently for our Lord and Savior to forgive us, as a group, for the sins of the individuals.

All of the counter arguments given in previous postings are quite valid defenses and attempt to give a balanced picture that is often NOT seen in mainstream media…and yet…with these defenses of the faith and preceding these defenses of the faith, there needs to be an abject and sorrowful acknowledgement of the sin.
This is necessary so that others recognize in us, in the Church as a whole, a desire to cut out this cancer without destroying the entire body - most of which is quite healthy.

Peace
James
 
Fight back using objective reason. Their anti-Catholic rhetoric would be demolished using objective reason.
 
It’s interesting that your friends assume a married man would be less likely to sexually abuse a minor than would an unmarried man. Have they any data to support that claim? I’ve practiced criminal law for 20 years and it’s news to me. Also, it sounds to me like they’re saying the guilty priests are not fully responsible because celibacy causes perversion, as if anyone who is denied sex would resort to molestation. That argument lets abusers off the hook way too easily. Doesn’t sound like they’ve thought their arguments through.
 
It’s interesting that your friends assume a married man would be less likely to sexually abuse a minor than would an unmarried man. Have they any data to support that claim? I’ve practiced criminal law for 20 years and it’s news to me. Also, it sounds to me like they’re saying the guilty priests are not fully responsible because celibacy causes perversion, as if anyone who is denied sex would resort to molestation. That argument lets abusers off the hook way too easily. Doesn’t sound like they’ve thought their arguments through.
Actually I think that the argument re: celibacy is that allowing priests to marry provides a much larger pool of potential priests and more men becoming priests.
Thus reducing or eliminating the need to put up with these kinds of shenanigans (due to the “priest shortage”).

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top