How do you defend against this?

[GodIsGracious]

opednews.com/articles/A-Unifying-Theory-of-Roman-by-Vinnie-Nauheimer-100113-743.html

I don’t know.

I admit I’m a little tipsy after having a few bits of wine. But let me tell you if anything, not only do I love Christ, I love the Catholic faith. I believe it is the one True Faith. As Catholics we are PRIVILEGED to be in communion with Christ on earth like no other Christian through the Holy Eucharist at Mass.

I trust you folks, as Catholics. What do you say? I realize there are monsters within our Church, who have found sanctuary within the confines of the Catholic church, but this does NOT mean that the Catholic church Herself is bad.

I love Her so much, and Christ, and Christianity. Why? How does one defend against this? Help me, please.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

opednews.com/articles/A-Unifying-Theory-of-Roman-by-Vinnie-Nauheimer-100113-743.html

I don’t know.

I admit I’m a little tipsy after having a few bits of wine. But let me tell you if anything, not only do I love Christ, I love the Catholic faith. I believe it is the one True Faith. As Catholics we are PRIVILEGED to be in communion with Christ on earth like no other Christian through the Holy Eucharist at Mass.

I trust you folks, as Catholics. What do you say? I realize there are monsters within our Church, who have found sanctuary within the confines of the Catholic church, but this does NOT mean that the Catholic church Herself is bad.

I love Her so much, and Christ, and Christianity. Why? How does one defend against this? Help me, please.

Theory = idea NOT PROVEN.

How about substituting “Married father” for all the references to ‘pedophile priests’ or ‘bishops’. . .because, frankly, the most likely person to abuse children (boys or girls) is a married father. . .whether it’s his own children he abuses or their friends… .

Oh murgatroyd. “Normal people” then would be shocked that “married fathers” stand casually by and ‘permit’ the centuries old practice of child abuse.

But. . .I don’t hear Mr. “theory” castigating the people who are statistically more likely to be abusing children.

Why not?

I don’t hear Mr Theory speaking of Jewish rabbis (one prominent one who was just convicted of such abuse). Or of the many scout leaders, and school teachers, who are guilty of the same crimes.

Not a word against Episcopal priests abusing children. Or non-denom ‘pastors’.

No, it is only the “Catholic Church” which is guilty of such things?

Look, I’m not defending anybody who abuses anyone, man, woman or child.

But at the same time I am not about to pretend that the crimes of a miniscule segment of priests are somehow **only because they were Catholic priests. . .**or that the crime of abuse of children is somehow ‘**particularly a problem for Catholic priests’. . .**because it’s not.

And this kind of sensationalist and hysterical ‘theorizing’ is simply an attempt to make everything the fault of ‘the Catholic Church’ with the idea that magically all child abuse would disappear were we to wipe out the Catholic priesthood.

Balderdash.

 

[MoonChild02]

How do you defend against it?

Well, you have to realize that what this person is asking is: If the Church is supposed to be the example on which we set our lives, why do they allow such corruption?

Remember that we live in a world of sinners. The Church is made up of Her members, and Her members are human. We are imperfect. We, too, are sinners. You will find the same corruption in all walks of life, in all religions, in all governments, in all jobs. There is always going to be corruption, and you will find it everywhere. There is not one place you WON’T find it. It’s just that we’re the Catholic Church, and we’re expected to set the example.

You just have to remember that we are the Church, and we are human. Humans are sinners, and we have a tendency to fall to corruption. Yes, we have to rise above and try to set an example, but we also slip and fall, just like everyone else. We are all subject to the enemy. Remember that Satan is called “the ruler of this world”. We have to remember our connection to Christ, but everyone, even in the Church, falls for Satan’s tricks, some harder than others. The enemy goes after those who believe the most, and that’s why he implants himself into the hierarchy of the Church.

The people who say these things against the Church do not understand. They are confused. They don’t know what the definition of “human” is. Then they try to get people to understand their point of view, and they end up confusing everyone else, too. They are to be pitied and prayed for.

Read the Catholic Answers website, especially these links:
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0905fea10.asp
catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0804fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310fea5.asp

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Theory = idea NOT PROVEN.

How about substituting “Married father” for all the references to ‘pedophile priests’ or ‘bishops’. . .because, frankly, the most likely person to abuse children (boys or girls) is a married father. . .whether it’s his own children he abuses or their friends… .

Oh murgatroyd. “Normal people” then would be shocked that “married fathers” stand casually by and ‘permit’ the centuries old practice of child abuse.

But. . .I don’t hear Mr. “theory” castigating the people who are statistically more likely to be abusing children.

Why not?

I don’t hear Mr Theory speaking of Jewish rabbis (one prominent one who was just convicted of such abuse). Or of the many scout leaders, and school teachers, who are guilty of the same crimes.

Not a word against Episcopal priests abusing children. Or non-denom ‘pastors’.

No, it is only the “Catholic Church” which is guilty of such things?

Look, I’m not defending anybody who abuses anyone, man, woman or child.

But at the same time I am not about to pretend that the crimes of a miniscule segment of priests are somehow **only because they were Catholic priests. . .**or that the crime of abuse of children is somehow ‘**particularly a problem for Catholic priests’. . .**because it’s not.

And this kind of sensationalist and hysterical ‘theorizing’ is simply an attempt to make everything the fault of ‘the Catholic Church’ with the idea that magically all child abuse would disappear were we to wipe out the Catholic priesthood.

Balderdash.

A subterfuge at best!

The point is not that Catholic clergy members who act in such a vile way are worse or more common than others who’ve caused comparable injury to children and families; the point is that a person who does such things with foresight and knowledge of God’s Holy, Holy, Holy Church and Law must surely not believe the things they’re preaching. I can’t say why figures like these would not believe what they’re preaching (because there’s a ban on the topic), but I can assure you they’ve been through the philosophy and scripture enough times to know that not everything adds up. Or at least, they find scripture so unconvincing (having been made scholars of it) that it can scarcely deter them from the most brutal sins, not only against God, but against humanity.

Yeah, it’s sensational. But think more globally: what does a priest who molests kids really believe about God?

Believers will say “The members are the Church!” until somebody messes up big time; then it’s “Just because the members are perverts doesn’t mean the Church is bad.” It’s a lot of backtracking nonsense. It wouldn’t hurt to open your eyes; far better is that option than demanding some imaginary explanation for such horror.

 

[GodIsGracious]

@MoonChild02:

See what “Voice of Reason” just said? And that is what I was about to say. (BTW, “Voice of Reason,” you’re not. )

You CAN’T defend against that. The response is just what that last person said. Personally, I see these people as seeking the sanctuary of the Church. The problem comes when the Church covers it up.

THAT is what is hard to defend against. If She had not, had the bishops simply removed them from service, outrage against the church could not be so easy.

 

[iamrefreshed]

A
Yeah, it’s sensational. But think more globally: what does a priest who molests kids really believe about God?

Priests are men, no different than me.

It was placing them above reproach that allowed so many a parent to place their child directly in harms way in the first place, no?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Priests are men, no different than me.

It was placing them above reproach that allowed so many a parent to place their child directly in harms way in the first place, no?

Of course, but the leaders of the church, as you know will be judged harsher according to scripture (as is proper to the nature of their knowledge of the Word). See, the greater the knowledge of godly things, the less impetuosity that will be credited in the priest’s favour as per the concession to his guilt or folly. It guarantees that there is little hope for fortification against temptation; and if not for the priest, then for whom? Unless of course, we are all men and women, and nothing further. Then we would expect terrible deeds from men of all creeds (yes, I meant for that to rhyme).

This is what first slayed me about Christianity when I started falling out of it: that it doesn’t allow for even a knotch more fortitude in doing those things which are said to be moral. If a life dedicated to God doesn’t bar you completely from such conduct, I am convinced that nothing does or will, and certainly not to the point of salvaton.

 

[FiberZilla]

Through all of history, most catholic priests have likely been decent men who dedicated their lives to their duties with honor and integrity. The problem is that not a small number have failed to control themselves sexually. And in a child rich environment that does not allow for normal sexual relations with a woman (wife), these men have inevitably find themselves in a position not unlike the fox in the hen house. The Church has failed to evaluate things as they actually are and allowed shame to override good sense which would have called for exposing these evil deeds, expelling the perpetrators and notifying the authorities. This has been going on since at least Greek and Roman times when sexual abuse of children was a culturally accepted part of life. There is nothing new about it.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Priests are men, no different than me.

It was placing them above reproach that allowed so many a parent to place their child directly in harms way in the first place, no?

So. You’re blaming the victim now?

 

[camerong]

Of course, but the leaders of the church, as you know will be judged harsher according to scripture (as is proper to the nature of their knowledge of the Word). See, the greater the knowledge of godly things, the less impetuosity that will be credited in the priest’s favour as per the concession to his guilt or folly. It guarantees that there is little hope for fortification against temptation; and if not for the priest, then for whom? Unless of course, we are all men and women, and nothing further. Then we would expect terrible deeds from men of all creeds (yes, I meant for that to rhyme).

This is what first slayed me about Christianity when I started falling out of it: that it doesn’t allow for even a knotch more fortitude in doing those things which are said to be moral. If a life dedicated to God doesn’t bar you completely from such conduct, I am convinced that nothing does or will, and certainly not to the point of salvaton.

So what you’re trying to say is that because Catholics aren’t better than non-Catholics, Catholicism must be false? And because Christians aren’t better than non-Christians, Christianity must be false? Or because even people who devote their whole lives to this belief commit heinous acts, that belief must be false? (Please correct me if I misunderstand your point).

Assuming I correctly read your argument, then on what basis do you argue this? Internal inconsistency? Catholicism (or more general Christianity) never claims that its followers will sin less, or have more fortitude. Because having true beliefs necessarily causes one to have more fortitude? This is untrue for any other kind of belief.

I think rather, you see Christianity as some kind of magic, and are asserting that if we really know magic, then the magic should help us be better people. Because we are not better people, the magic must be make-belief.

Instead, a very basic premise of Christianity is that no human, besides Christ, can overcome temptation. Your argument and the article in the OP only support this premise. That priests fail is, in my opinion, merely evidence of how much humanity–all of it–needs Christ.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Remind them that Jesus chose 12 Apostles. One of them was Judas Iscariot. Another was Peter, who denied Him three times, even though He chose Peter to lead His Church. The others, except for St. John, deserted Him in His passion like cowards.

Ask them if they expect the Church to be better at choosing men to serve the Church than Jesus?

 

[FiberZilla]

Remind them that Jesus chose 12 Apostles. One of them was Judas Iscariot. Another was Peter, who denied Him three times, even though He chose Peter to lead His Church. The others, except for St. John, deserted Him in His passion like cowards.

Ask them if they expect the Church to be better at choosing men to serve the Church than Jesus?

I really hate when this is used as a reason for the systematic corruption that has been allowed to fester within the power structure of the Catholic Church. Is that any comfort to the victims and their families? Unlike those who have violated children and the authorities who swept it under the rug, Peter and Judas faced immediate and severe consequences for their actions.

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. (Titus 1:5-9)

 

[Scoobyshme]

I really hate when this is used as a reason for the systematic corruption that has been allowed to fester within the power structure of the Catholic Church. Is that any comfort to the victims and their families? Unlike those who have violated children and the authorities who swept it under the rug, Peter and Judas faced immediate and severe consequences for their actions.

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. (Titus 1:5-9)

Let me ask again… Do you expect the Church to pick better men to lead the Church than Jesus Christ did? Yes or no? Explain.

We are ALL afflicted with the effects of Original Sin, namely, weakness of will and darkness of intellect. We will ALL be judged according to how we conduct our lives, regardless of whether we get “caught” and punished in this life or not.

If you are so concerned for the victims, why are you focused on the miniscule percent of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church vs. the rest of sexual abuse in society? For example, Protestant ministers have a slightly higher percent of abuse. Schools have a rate 5 times the rate of either. And the majority of abuse takes place by married men. Are you going to rant against any of them, too?

Perspective is what is required. What these priests did is certainly wrong and sinful, and they should be arrested and thrown in jail, if guilty, just like everyone else. However, there is a double standard in most folks’ thoughts, I think brought on by the vicious anti-Catholic media, who present a skewed view of what is going on. In fact, I think it was somewhere in the Northeast U.S. where legislation is being proposed to remove any statute of limitations on abuse by priests, but only 60 or 90 days after graduation for school students vs. teachers. I’m not surprised, actually.

 

[Magdalena09]

Everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, needs to read the book Courage to Be Catholic by George Weigel. The first chapter is excruciatingly painful to read because it recounts many of the cases of child abuse be priests… and that’s all it does. It doesn’t defend them because there is no defense. There is no “good reason”. Child abuse is indefensible. There is no adequate explanation because no amount of reasoning or thinking will ever present a conclusion that makes it an understandable behavior. People who do try to find a reason, excuse, or defense are wasting their time in doing such and are actually doing a disservice to the Church because it makes it look like Catholics somehow think there is an excuse for such deplorable behavior.

I would encourage everyone to read the book… it is a fantastic book that does not try to defend this behavior or “figure it out” per say… although it does briefly suggest a few possible “wrong paths” that certainly didn’t help anything.

I read this my first semester at a Catholic college while I was in RCIA. It made me think about a lot of things. Though written by a Catholic it does not give leniency to the actions of any of the priests who abused or anyone who made poor choices in dealing with it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I really hate when this is used as a reason for the systematic corruption that has been allowed to fester within the power structure of the Catholic Church. Is that any comfort to the victims and their families? Unlike those who have violated children and the authorities who swept it under the rug, Peter and Judas faced immediate and severe consequences for their actions.

"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. (Titus 1:5-9)

The 'systematic corruption in the power structure of the Catholic Church?"

Oh yeah?

I suppose that there has been a systematic corruption in the power structure of fatherhood too… .since married men are the most likely to abuse children.

And I suppose that absolutely NONE of your church’s ‘hierarchy’ have ever engaged in any kind of sin, especially child abuse since currently this is considered the ‘ultimate’ sin, surpassing even that of abortion (which, surprisingly, in SOME–but not all-Protestant circles isn’t even a sin at all.)

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

So what you’re trying to say is that because Catholics aren’t better than non-Catholics, Catholicism must be false? And because Christians aren’t better than non-Christians, Christianity must be false? Or because even people who devote their whole lives to this belief commit heinous acts, that belief must be false? (Please correct me if I misunderstand your point).

Assuming I correctly read your argument, then on what basis do you argue this? Internal inconsistency? Catholicism (or more general Christianity) never claims that its followers will sin less, or have more fortitude. Because having true beliefs necessarily causes one to have more fortitude? This is untrue for any other kind of belief.

I think rather, you see Christianity as some kind of magic, and are asserting that if we really know magic, then the magic should help us be better people. Because we are not better people, the magic must be make-belief.

This is a very solid estimation of precisely the thing that i’m getting at.

Instead, a very basic premise of Christianity is that no human, besides Christ, can overcome temptation. Your argument and the article in the OP only support this premise. That priests fail is, in my opinion, merely evidence of how much humanity–all of it–needs Christ.

If Christ does nothing to fortify humans - make their human existence better in any moral way - for what purpose is he needed? His efforts are in vain, except some people in the world know what He did for us (if he so did something), and some are able to repent their final sin (if they are so lucky to think of it before they die). In any event, what you say is true about their being no difference between Christians and non-Christians, though I don’t think that is the story of the Bible. The Bible is continuously telling us that this body and that blood and this anointing and that confession and this eucharist and that baptism will do something divine to or for us.
And then it doesn’t.

I’m not saying that it absolutely means this thing or the other. But a balance of probabilities should reveal to you that there leaves much to be desired in a faith that does nothing to make people better, somehow.

 

[FiberZilla]

The 'systematic corruption in the power structure of the Catholic Church?"

Oh yeah?

I suppose that there has been a systematic corruption in the power structure of fatherhood too… .since married men are the most likely to abuse children.

And I suppose that absolutely NONE of your church’s ‘hierarchy’ have ever engaged in any kind of sin, especially child abuse since currently this is considered the ‘ultimate’ sin, surpassing even that of abortion (which, surprisingly, in SOME–but not all-Protestant circles isn’t even a sin at all.)

1. Everybody sins my friend. But nobody in my church has ever accused of child molestation.
2. Hell is bursting at the seams with dead protestants as well as catholics. Those who even approve of abortion are as guilty as any murderer.

With all christian charity I must say that your point about fatherhood makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Fran65]

Tantum,

There are two important differences between abusive, married fathers and abusive priests. First of all, the non-priest abusers do not hold an office in which they act in public in the person of Christ.

Second, in the case of the non-priests, there is no hierarchy or institution acting to cover up the abuse in a systematic and deliberate way. What I find difficult to defend is the actions of those who moved the priests on to other parishes and covered up the abuse to ‘protect’ the Church. The irony being that this has damaged the Church far more than rooting out and dealing with the abusers in the first place ever would have.

I can only think that those who are guilty of the abuse and of the cover up made terrible errors of judgement and that we have learnt from past mistakes.

 

[Magdalena09]

1. Everybody sins my friend. But nobody in my church has ever accused of child molestation.

See my previous post for my views on how there IS no defense for the scandal at hand within the church.

That being said, when I was 13 my youth minister at my protestant church tried to have sex with me. I never reported it. Just because some problems go unreported does not mean they do not exist.