How to answer accusations against the pope?

[lerapt78]

actually, this is what sovereign and independent democracies do. It is better that the secrecy practiced by theocracies.

lerapt78:

this is an extremely naive statement. Do you honestly believe that any and all democratic governments have complete transparency?

of course not. But they do to a very great extent on issues such as the abuse of children in their institutions. So should the catholic church.

I think I see where you’re going with the comparison, but it has to be noted that the comparison is not entirely analogous. Churches within the US (or anywhere else where abuse scandals have cropped up, for that matter), are under the authority and control of not only of the Church, but *also *of their respective governments. So the US churches, while taking orders from the Vatican (separate country), operate under US law but are not **part **of the US government. Therefore, any exposure or investigation done by US governmental authority into churches is not done by disclosing confidential state information, but rather by using the very evidence that has been provided by the public or local authorities, entirely unrelated to governmental release of records.

Vatican City, on the other hand, is both a theocratical body AND a government, and there is no way to separate the two. So for the victims of American clerical abuse to demand access to Vatican records would be the same as the country of citizenship of those we hold as POWs to demand access to classified military information, if they claim to be victims of torture. It would be like the prisoners of Abu Ghraib having demanded as a right to have the American government disclose all of its military documents and then crying that it is “more secretive” than other governments if it didn’t.

The issue is that we don’t know if cover-ups were conducted by low-level bishops and that the Vatican was aware of problems until they were too widespread to be contained. The Pope is being accused of this, but there is no proof (and admittedly it would difficult to get this proof), but to say that the Vatican therefore has to allow others into its private records and then turn around and call them more secretive if they don’t is a bit unfair.

Also, I would be curious to know how you can make the generalized comparison between democratic and theocratic nations in regards to secrecy. What is the number of countries you’ve compared that fit under either/both systems in order to come to this conclusion?

 

[MarcoPolo]

No, I am not an institution, or part of one. Where there is an ingrained practice, such as avoidance of scandal, that leads to wrong-doing, you may reasonably decide that there is a risk of it happening again.

Ah, so the categorical institution must be formal. But what “ingrained practice” are you speaking of? I don’t accept such wide, broad-brushed statements, unquantifiable, based on some notion that the Church is riddled with scandal at every turn. There is a miniscule percentage of persons found guilty of crimes within the Church over the last half-century - and while I acknowledge that reality - I’ve grown bored of entertaining the fictional notion that the whole Church must be under heavy suspicion, or likely guilty, or whatever, because of the behavior of the fractional infiltrators. If you want to hold to “substantial reason for suspicion of the entire Church”, I guess that’s your affair to hold without cause. If you’d rather say that there is substantial reason to presume the vast majority of Church have not committed such crimes, then your comment would be proportionate to reality. But you’ll have to find a different audience willing to buy the stigma you are assigning to the Church at all levels. Maybe try a skeptics forum.

 

[Hokomai]

Ah, so the categorical institution must be formal. But what “ingrained practice” are you speaking of? I don’t accept such wide, broad-brushed statements, unquantifiable, based on some notion that the Church is riddled with scandal at every turn. There is a miniscule percentage of persons found guilty of crimes within the Church over the last half-century - and while I acknowledge that reality - I’ve grown bored of entertaining the fictional notion that the whole Church must be under heavy suspicion, or likely guilty, or whatever, because of the behavior of the fractional infiltrators. If you want to hold to “substantial reason for suspicion of the entire Church”, I guess that’s your affair to hold without cause. If you’d rather say that there is substantial reason to presume the vast majority of Church have not committed such crimes, then your comment would be proportionate to reality. But you’ll have to find a different audience willing to buy the stigma you are assigning to the Church at all levels. Maybe try a skeptics forum.

The ‘avoidance of scandal’ is a Catholic practice which lay behind many of the wrong decisions made about abuse. You attribute to me views I have not expressed and do not hold.

 

[Hokomai]

I think I see where you’re going with the comparison, but it has to be noted that the comparison is not entirely analogous. Churches within the US (or anywhere else where abuse scandals have cropped up, for that matter), are under the authority and control of not only of the Church, but *also *of their respective governments. So the US churches, while taking orders from the Vatican (separate country), operate under US law but are not **part **of the US government. Therefore, any exposure or investigation done by US governmental authority into churches is not done by disclosing confidential state information, but rather by using the very evidence that has been provided by the public or local authorities, entirely unrelated to governmental release of records.

Vatican City, on the other hand, is both a theocratical body AND a government, and there is no way to separate the two. So for the victims of American clerical abuse to demand access to Vatican records would be the same as the country of citizenship of those we hold as POWs to demand access to classified military information, if they claim to be victims of torture. It would be like the prisoners of Abu Ghraib having demanded as a right to have the American government disclose all of its military documents and then crying that it is “more secretive” than other governments if it didn’t.

The issue is that we don’t know if cover-ups were conducted by low-level bishops and that the Vatican was aware of problems until they were too widespread to be contained. The Pope is being accused of this, but there is no proof (and admittedly it would difficult to get this proof), but to say that the Vatican therefore has to allow others into its private records and then turn around and call them more secretive if they don’t is a bit unfair.

Also, I would be curious to know how you can make the generalized comparison between democratic and theocratic nations in regards to secrecy. What is the number of countries you’ve compared that fit under either/both systems in order to come to this conclusion?

I was thinking of any Islamic nation, Tibet before 1950, the Papal States, and the US and Sweden.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

I can’t help thinking there is a double standard lurking in the OP question.

---

“Anyone who is aware of the high degree of selectivity of Leftist indignation, and of how they remain utterly impassive in the face of any injustice that doesn’t serve to further their agenda, keeps their complaints in perspective.”

It is not, just a question the comes up when you tell anyone your Catholic.

 

[sedonaman]

It is not, just a question the comes up when you tell anyone your Catholic.

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like “answering accusations against Mohammed”? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like “answering accusations against Mohammed”? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

Because this question is not about Mohammed, its answering questions regarding the sex scandal and what part did the Pope have, if any, and how to respond to such, just as the thread is titled.

" How to answer accusations against the pope?"

 

[sedonaman]

Because this question is not about Mohammed, its answering questions regarding the sex scandal and what part did the Pope have, if any, and how to respond to such, just as the thread is titled.

" How to answer accusations against the pope?"

It has been proffered that some public school officials have molested children under their supervision; it has also been proffered that Mohammed did too. All I’m saying is that the pope and the Church are being singled out and that the whole topic should be fair and balanced. Otherwise, you have a double standard.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

It has been proffered that some public school officials have molested children under their supervision; it has also been proffered that Mohammed did too. All I’m saying is that the pope and the Church are being singled out and that the whole topic should be fair and balanced. Otherwise, you have a double standard.

Right, I do not disagree that the Church has been put on a double standard. My issue is, people come up with mis information about the Pope having knowing about the sex scandals, or should have done more. My questions is, how much truth is there? And what material was out there to possibly ready, which I asked and was provided.

This was was the whole point of the thread.

 

[sedonaman]

Right, I do not disagree that the Church has been put on a double standard. My issue is, people come up with mis information about the Pope having knowing about the sex scandals, or should have done more. My questions is, how much truth is there? And what material was out there to possibly ready, which I asked and was provided.

This was was the whole point of the thread.

Lots 'o luck.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

Lots 'o luck.

I don’t:shrug: understand what you mean?

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t:shrug: understand what you mean?

The documentation on who knew what, when they knew it, and did they cover it up would probably fill a freight train. Analyzing it would be a different matter. Most of these discussions are impromptu and between people who are not prepared with all that documentation at hand. Consequently, it would be difficult to carry on an objective discussion, especially with people who probably already have their minds made up or they wouldn’t have broached the question to begin with.

---

The whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

 

[CrimsonCatholic]

The documentation on who knew what, when they knew it, and did they cover it up would probably fill a freight train. Analyzing it would be a different matter. Most of these discussions are impromptu and between people who are not prepared with all that documentation at hand. Consequently, it would be difficult to carry on an objective discussion, especially with people who probably already have their minds made up or they wouldn’t have broached the question to begin with.

---

The whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Agreed.

 

[Hokomai]

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like “answering accusations against Mohammed”? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

Ummm let’s think. One has been dead for more than a thousand years and one is still alive. No, that can’t be it. Got me stumped too. Must be a conspiracy.

 

[lerapt78]

I was thinking of any Islamic nation, Tibet before 1950, the Papal States, and the US and Sweden.

I see, but how are non-theocratic nations more “open”?

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like “answering accusations against Mohammed”? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

There’s a very special brand of hatred reserved all special-like for the CC. You know what always bothers me about accusations regarding the scandal (aside from the abuse itself)? Why is it they never focus on the very homosexual nature of the entire scandal, hmmm? Opponents don’t like to confront *that *one, for some reason.

 

[Hokomai]

I see, but how are non-theocratic nations more “open”?

They typically have provision for freedom of information and udcial review of decisions to withhold information. The Vatican should do the same thing. It would help build confidence and trust. at least, I hope it would.

 

[sedonaman]

Ummm let’s think. One has been dead for more than a thousand years and one is still alive. No, that can’t be it. Got me stumped too. Must be a conspiracy.

How did you know?

 

[epan]

Many times as catholics we will here from People who will ask, what about the pope knowing about the sexual abuse being committed in the church and did nothing about this.

Usually they will say it was before he was elected as pope. What information out there shows he was not involved or of he was, what does that change?

Thanks.

It’s impossible to know what Cardinal Ratzinger knew, unless he tells us, or a witness comes forward. The lack of transparency is disappointing. The Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith does handle sex abuse complaints, as I understand it. That is why the assumption is made by many that Cardinal Ratzinger would have known about these charges at the time.

Where the Church has been investigated, it has been found in some archdioceses that the priority was placed on protecting the reputation of the Church, and on minimizing financial loss, at the expense of the welfare of the victims.

This is no different from what one would expect from a large corporation. Part of the indignation is that many people think that the Church should put ethical concerns ahead of profit and fear of embarrassment. Since the activities were criminal, it may be safely assumed that there is also an interest in avoiding being held accountable criminally.

It seems to me, that given what is actually known, that the Pope is not in a defensible position. He is after all, the head of the Church, and he was in charge of the part of the Church which would have dealt with the matter. Therefore, it was his responsibility, just as responsibility would fall on any leader of any other organization in a similar position.

If he did know, then some serious questions arise. If he did not know, then some serious questions arise as to the management of the office that he held at the time.

 

[lerapt78]

They typically have provision for freedom of information and udcial review of decisions to withhold information. The Vatican should do the same thing. It would help build confidence and trust. at least, I hope it would.

I may be wrong in this, but I believe what you refer to has to do with freedom of information to the subjects/citizens of said country. The US is not subject to Vatican Authority and therefore would have to right to information.

Where the Church has been investigated, it has been found in some archdioceses that the priority was placed on protecting the reputation of the Church, and on minimizing financial loss, at the expense of the welfare of the victims.

This is no different from what one would expect from a large corporation. Part of the indignation is that many people think that the Church should put ethical concerns ahead of profit and fear of embarrassment. Since the activities were criminal, it may be safely assumed that there is also an interest in avoiding being held accountable criminally.
.

I agree with this, and the reassignment of the abusers has infuriated me as much as any non-Catholic.