Letter Indicates Former Pope Knew of Abuse

[anode]

Or the Easter Bunny.

But go ahead and believe the media is unbiased and lacks an agenda. That’s at least as believable as the furry flopears with the candy eggs.

The media goes after any scandal or abuse. The horrible Massachusetts bullying-suicide is a case in point. By the time the press, the attorney general and the state of Massachusetts are finished, the bullying ‘kids’ and their feckless teachers and principals will wish they had never been born. Most adolescents want to be treated as adults–well, these students will be.

The point is, no institution can deem itself protected or safe from investigation in a democracy with a free press. There is no free lunch. If some institutions, like the Boy Scouts, haven’t been investigated yet, it’s because they are next in line.

 

[anode]

That assessment of pedophiles by Fr Fitzgerald seems to coincide with what seems to be the case with pedophiles in general. It disturbs me to think that these people don’t seem to be able/willing to stop themselves. It disturbs me to think that a truly incurable condition could indeed exist: either through innate lack of control or lack of the desire to exert control over one’s inclinations.

Easy to dismiss them as evil or sick. Harder to figure out how to avoid people from becoming like this in the first place - and since a cure seems elusive, prevention would seem to be the only remedy…

Pedophiles, like other incurable criminals, are sociopaths. This is a specific psychiatric category. These people are classically very bright, often good looking, and manipulative in the extreme. They don’t understand the difference between good and evil and cannot learn. They think that it’s their victims’ fault for their crimes, or that they are misunderstood or being mistreated by society. They often manipulate those interviewing them, and make their victims, families, prosecutors and psychiatrists sympathize with them. In prison, they are model prisoners and often get out on parole. They can manipulate psychiatrists, jailers, fellow prisoners.

Fr. Murphy in the interviews with a social worker trained in dealing with sex offenders, never expressed regret for his crimes. He was specifically warned by Milwaukee against any further ministry of any kind. In ‘retirement’ he often violated this ‘parole’ and expressed a desire to keep working with the deaf community. This also was a basis for the archdiocese of Milwaukee’s desire to refer the case to the Vatican–Murphy’s violating of the terms of his ‘retirement’.

The Congregation’s great error was its runaround and stalling in dealing with an egregious case, very badly handled by Milwaukee, against an aging man. If the Congregation under Ratzinger had responded promptly and been in the process of developing a case when Murphy died, no criticism could have been leveled against the Cardinal or the Congregation.

 

[RobbyS]

Thanks for that link, markomalley. My husband just reminded me that I should not presume the press would have a grasp of our Sacrament of Penance.

Abuse of the Sacrament of Penance goes WAY back. The reason for confessional boxes was to keep priest and penitent physically separate in a box in avery public place.

 

[RobbyS]

Pedophiles, like other incurable criminals, are sociopaths. This is a specific psychiatric category. These people are classically very bright, often good looking, and manipulative in the extreme. They don’t understand the difference between good and evil and cannot learn. They think that it’s their victims’ fault for their crimes, or that they are misunderstood or being mistreated by society. They often manipulate those interviewing them, and make their victims, families, prosecutors and psychiatrists sympathize with them. In prison, they are model prisoners and often get out on parole. They can manipulate psychiatrists, jailers, fellow prisoners.

Fr. Murphy in the interviews with a social worker trained in dealing with sex offenders, never expressed regret for his crimes. He was specifically warned by Milwaukee against any further ministry of any kind. In ‘retirement’ he often violated this ‘parole’ and expressed a desire to keep working with the deaf community. This also was a basis for the archdiocese of Milwaukee’s desire to refer the case to the Vatican–Murphy’s violating of the terms of his ‘retirement’.

The Congregation’s great error was its runaround and stalling in dealing with an egregious case, very badly handled by Milwaukee, against an aging man. If the Congregation under Ratzinger had responded promptly and been in the process of developing a case when Murphy died, no criticism could have been leveled against the Cardinal or the Congregation.

Why keep using the term pedophile when the victims are seldom young children? And I wonder if we should b using psycological terms when the basic problem rests in the ordinary male’s sex drive, which our theology tells us is as often as not, out of order.

 

[fnr]

Abuse of the Sacrament of Penance goes WAY back. The reason for confessional boxes was to keep priest and penitent physically separate in a box in avery public place.

RobbyS is right.

I’ve come across articles from 2003 by Thomas P. Doyle, OP, an Army chaplain, doctor of canon law, and licensed counselor, on abuse. He’s an expert witness in some lawsuits over abuse. I think his description of the history of abuse and clerical response is extremely useful.

Here’s one quote of his:
The modern Church has known about the risks of priest sexual abuse of children for over 1,500 years. This problem has just been an incredibly well-guarded secret of the Roman Catholic church for that long.

Here’s an article by Fr. Doyle in the journal Pastoral Psychology titled “Roman Catholic Clericalism, Religious Duress, and Clergy Sexual Abuse.” (I don’t think this is publicly accessible, my library had access).

One affidavit is online.

Children and adolescents have been being abused by priests since pretty close to the beginning of the Church. Fr. Doyle notes that evidence for the sexual abuse of children by priests goes back to at least the 4th century. Canons and less formal punishments were in place to deal harshly with the abusers throughout the history of the church. The act of abusing a minor under 16 years of age was included as a specific canonical crime in the first codification of canon law in 1917. In the last few decades, maybe since Vatican II, maybe earlier, it seems – until quite recently (the last decade or so) – there’s a circle-the-wagons approach to dealing with this form of abuse.

Tragically, referring to child victims’ unwillingness to come forward in the 1950s, Fr. Doyle’s affidavit states:
*I believe that it is also realistic to expect that their parents would not have readily believed them and that the wider Catholic community would be prone to supporting the perpetrator and not the victims. *

Fr. Doyle argues that the roots of this response are in “religious duress,” which is a state of psychological and emotional distress brought on by systematic indoctrination related to the priest standing in for Christ.
It has been my experience that nearly every victim of sexual abuse whom I have met and counseled with has stated that he or she had a great fear of priests and thought they took the place of God.

More recently,
It has only been in the past few years with the widespread media exposure and multiple civil law suits that Catholic church authorities have begun to take minimal appropriate action towards perpetrators by sending them for assessment and treatment. In spite of some small steps taken in the direction of healing for victims, the church generally treats the victims as if they were an enemy force.
…
This civil law intervention has been a major factor in forcing the institutional Catholic church through its dioceses and bishops, to acknowledge the problem of sexual abuse by dysfunctional clergy and to take minimal responsible action. The civil law intervention has helped to break the heavy pall of silence and secrecy that has enshrouded these cases for decades. This secrecy has been aided and enabled by the Church’s claims to be exempt from any accountability to the civil law because of the doctrine of separation of church and State.

Historically, there have been harsh punishments and public defrocking of priests who abused children. Fr. Doyle cites The Decree of Gratian, published in 1140, a mammoth tome of legislative texts from a variety of sources dating back to the first century. In it, there are several references to legislation on the sexual abuse of minors in general, by clerics in particular. Gratian apparently argued that priests abusing young adolescents should suffer the same penalty as lay men, the death penalty. Gratian advocated excommunication of priests who abused children (in 1140, that meant total shunning from all society).

Fr. Doyle describes the Council of Trent as addressing rampant clerical corruption, including priests living “depraved and scandalous” lives. He asserts that the sexual abuse of minors by the clergy was the primary sexual crime that the council addressed. Apparently the background to the 1917 and 1984 versions of canon law includes significant concern over sexual abuse of minors.

Fr. Doyle quotes a papal decree by Pope Pius V from 1568, five years after the Council of Trent that declared:
Priests who abuse are deprived of all offices, benefices, privileges, degraded and turned over to secular courts for additional punishments.

I think it’s clear that the sexual abuse of minors has been a matter of grave concern to the Church for almost its entire history.

Sometime during the 20th century, this harsh punishment of priests who were sexual predators started falling by the wayside. Privacy and preservation of the reputation of the clergy and the Hierarchy became paramount. Rather than doing whatever necessary to avoid abuse and comfort the victims, the clergy and we started putting “church as institution” above anything else. But the People of God are the Church, and the institution serves the Church.

It’s odd to me… Vatican II took place right during a time when so many of the abuse cases we’re hearing about now also occurred. Was abuse a point of concern leading up to Vatican II, as it was for the Council of Trend in the 16th century?

 

[anode]

Why keep using the term pedophile when the victims are seldom young children? And I wonder if we should b using psychological terms when the basic problem rests in the ordinary male’s sex drive, which our theology tells us is as often as not, out of order.

It is not the “ordinary male’s sex drive” It is using sex to dominate and humiliate another individual, as in the case of rape.

Say they had castrated Fr. Murphy. He would have found another way to find his victims.

The vast majority of adult males do not engage in these crimes in our society. If they have sex outside of marriage, it is usually consensually with adult females. This is not a crime, except, in most states, when it’s transacted for money.

I wish that* someone* would dig up some dirt on the Milwaukee police and attorney general during the time Murphy was “active” in Milwaukee. After all, the church can go only so far. There’s a new article out about Murphy abusing boys in the diocese of Superior, after he had ‘retired’. IF he had been convicted of crimes in Milwaukee, Murphy would have been thrown in jail. Even after he was paroled, and escaped to life up north, the local police could have monitored him. He moved in society as a priest and was highly visible. Neither the Milwaukee nor the Superior diocese could monitor him.

 

[adamsapple]

Children and adolescents have been being abused by priests since pretty close to the beginning of the Church. Fr. Doyle notes that evidence for the sexual abuse of children by priests goes back to at least the 4th century. Canons and less formal punishments were in place to deal harshly with the abusers throughout the history of the church. The act of abusing a minor under 16 years of age was included as a specific canonical crime in the first codification of canon law in 1917. In the last few decades, maybe since Vatican II, maybe earlier, it seems – until quite recently (the last decade or so) – there’s a circle-the-wagons approach to dealing with this form of abuse.

Tragically, referring to child victims’ unwillingness to come forward in the 1950s, Fr. Doyle’s affidavit states:
*I believe that it is also realistic to expect that their parents would not have readily believed them and that the wider Catholic community would be prone to supporting the perpetrator and not the victims. *

Fr. Doyle argues that the roots of this response are in “religious duress,” which is a state of psychological and emotional distress brought on by systematic indoctrination related to the priest standing in for Christ.
It has been my experience that nearly every victim of sexual abuse whom I have met and counseled with has stated that he or she had a great fear of priests and thought they took the place of God.

More recently,
It has only been in the past few years with the widespread media exposure and multiple civil law suits that Catholic church authorities have begun to take minimal appropriate action towards perpetrators by sending them for assessment and treatment. In spite of some small steps taken in the direction of healing for victims, the church generally treats the victims as if they were an enemy force.
…
This civil law intervention has been a major factor in forcing the institutional Catholic church through its dioceses and bishops, to acknowledge the problem of sexual abuse by dysfunctional clergy and to take minimal responsible action. The civil law intervention has helped to break the heavy pall of silence and secrecy that has enshrouded these cases for decades. This secrecy has been aided and enabled by the Church’s claims to be exempt from any accountability to the civil law because of the doctrine of separation of church and State.

Historically, there have been harsh punishments and public defrocking of priests who abused children. Fr. Doyle cites The Decree of Gratian, published in 1140, a mammoth tome of legislative texts from a variety of sources dating back to the first century. In it, there are several references to legislation on the sexual abuse of minors in general, by clerics in particular. Gratian apparently argued that priests abusing young adolescents should suffer the same penalty as lay men, the death penalty. Gratian advocated excommunication of priests who abused children (in 1140, that meant total shunning from all society).

Fr. Doyle describes the Council of Trent as addressing rampant clerical corruption, including priests living “depraved and scandalous” lives. He asserts that the sexual abuse of minors by the clergy was the primary sexual crime that the council addressed. Apparently the background to the 1917 and 1984 versions of canon law includes significant concern over sexual abuse of minors.

Fr. Doyle quotes a papal decree by Pope Pius V from 1568, five years after the Council of Trent that declared:
Priests who abuse are deprived of all offices, benefices, privileges, degraded and turned over to secular courts for additional punishments.

I think it’s clear that the sexual abuse of minors has been a matter of grave concern to the Church for almost its entire history.

Sometime during the 20th century, this harsh punishment of priests who were sexual predators started falling by the wayside. Privacy and preservation of the reputation of the clergy and the Hierarchy became paramount. Rather than doing whatever necessary to avoid abuse and comfort the victims, the clergy and we started putting “church as institution” above anything else. But the People of God are the Church, and the institution serves the Church.

It’s odd to me… Vatican II took place right during a time when so many of the abuse cases we’re hearing about now also occurred. Was abuse a point of concern leading up to Vatican II, as it was for the Council of Trend in the 16th century?

---

The priesthood has been a haven for depraved sexual activity for centuries. Everyone blames the media for exposing child abuse, but if it wasn’t for the media, the Church would still be squirming to hide the truth.

And ordinary Catholics are also to blame. Just read some of the comments on threads here and it’s obvious that many would give the Church a pass on the whole thing. You can find every excuse and rationale for the response of the Church to these abuse cases. What you don’t see a lot of is a demand for the ENTIRE truth and JUSTICE for the victims.
Rome thinks it lives in a vacuum, untouchable by civil justice. But justice gets closer and closer and the entire Church, to include the Pope, will be answerable.

 

[RobbyS]

RobbyS is right.

I’ve come across articles from 2003 by Thomas P. Doyle, OP, an Army chaplain, doctor
Children and adolescents have been being abused by priests since pretty close to the beginning of the Church. Fr. Doyle notes that evidence for the sexual abuse of children by priests goes back to at least the 4th century. Canons and less formal punishments were in place to deal harshly with the abusers throughout the history of the church. The act of abusing a minor under 16 years of age was included as a specific canonical crime in the first codification of canon law in 1917. In the last few decades, maybe since Vatican II, maybe earlier, it seems – until quite recently (the last decade or so) – there’s a circle-the-wagons approach to dealing with this form of abuse.

Tragically, referring to child victims’ unwillingness to come forward in the 1950s, Fr. Doyle’s affidavit states:
*I believe that it is also realistic to expect that their parents would not have readily believed them and that the wider Catholic community would be prone to supporting the perpetrator and not the victims. *

Fr. Doyle argues that the roots of this response are in “religious duress,” which is a state of psychological and emotional distress brought on by systematic indoctrination related to the priest standing in for Christ.
It has been my experience that nearly every victim of sexual abuse whom I have met and counseled with has stated that he or she had a great fear of priests and thought they took the place of God.

More recently,
It has only been in the past few years with the widespread media exposure and multiple civil law suits that Catholic church authorities have begun to take minimal appropriate action towards perpetrators by sending them for assessment and treatment. In spite of some small steps taken in the direction of healing for victims, the church generally treats the victims as if they were an enemy force.
…
This civil law intervention has been a major factor in forcing the institutional Catholic church through its dioceses and bishops, to acknowledge the problem of sexual abuse by dysfunctional clergy and to take minimal responsible action. The civil law intervention has helped to break the heavy pall of silence and secrecy that has enshrouded these cases for decades. This secrecy has been aided and enabled by the Church’s claims to be exempt from any accountability to the civil law because of the doctrine of separation of church and State.

Historically, there have been harsh punishments and public defrocking of priests who abused children. Fr. Doyle cites The Decree of Gratian, published in 1140, a mammoth tome of legislative texts from a variety of sources dating back to the first century. In it, there are several references to legislation on the sexual abuse of minors in general, by clerics in particular. Gratian apparently argued that priests abusing young adolescents should suffer the same penalty as lay men, the death penalty. Gratian advocated excommunication of priests who abused children (in 1140, that meant total shunning from all society).

Fr. Doyle describes the Council of Trent as addressing rampant clerical corruption, including priests living “depraved and scandalous” lives. He asserts that the sexual abuse of minors by the clergy was the primary sexual crime that the council addressed. Apparently the background to the 1917 and 1984 versions of canon law includes significant concern over sexual abuse of minors.

Fr. Doyle quotes a papal decree by Pope Pius V from 1568, five years after the Council of Trent that declared:
Priests who abuse are deprived of all offices, benefices, privileges, degraded and turned over to secular courts for additional punishments.

I think it’s clear that the sexual abuse of minors has been a matter of grave concern to the Church for almost its entire history.

Sometime during the 20th century, this harsh punishment of priests who were sexual predators started falling by the wayside. Privacy and preservation of the reputation of the clergy and the Hierarchy became paramount. Rather than doing whatever necessary to avoid abuse and comfort the victims, the clergy and we started putting “church as institution” above anything else. But the People of God are the Church, and the institution serves the Church.

It’s odd to me… Vatican II took place right during a time when so many of the abuse cases we’re hearing about now also occurred. Was abuse a point of concern leading up to Vatican II, as it was for the Council of Trend in the 16th century?

I think you are removing the societal context for the issue. It is not that priests are especially susceptible to abuse but that --given their mission-- they ALSO were guilty of it. Fifteen hundred years ago, women and children were brutally treated by others. The Roman law, for instance. the head of the family could, in some cases. order the execution of family members. As for the treatment of priestly offenders, think of the difference in treatment between officers and enlisted in the military. Ironically as bishops have got less autocratic and the social distance between them and the lower clergy has decressd, and bishops want to “respect” priests more, so the tolerance of their foibles has increased. The "father"of the house become lax, and does not wish to hear ill of his “children.”

 

[seekerz]

Why keep using the term pedophile when the victims are seldom young children? And I wonder if we should b using psycological terms when the basic problem rests in the ordinary male’s sex drive, which our theology tells us is as often as not, out of order.

What I want to know is this: why the relentless attempts to relabel pedophilia as something els?. It is not normal for an adult man to lust after a 12 year old girl or boy anymore than a 5 year old girl or boy; while the latter may be worse in degree of offense, both are still pedophilia because for centuries now we have regarded 12 year olds (and even 15 and 16 year olds) as children, not as men or women.

Anyway, what age would you consider the cutoff for ‘young child’ and why the special labeling just for offending priest?. Why can’t they take the same label and treatment society routinely dishes out to the rest of pedophiles?

 

[RobbyS]

Or the Easter Bunny.

But go ahead and believe the media is unbiased and lacks an agenda. That’s at least as believable as the furry flopears with the candy eggs.

The undeniable fact is that the NYT is hostile to the Catholic Church. If Peggy Noonan wants to think of what is happening as beneficial, then it is like calling Attila the Hun “the scourge of God.” Of course, the people of God are always getting beat up. Just look at the Jews.

 

[RobbyS]

What I want to know is this: why the relentless attempts to relabel pedophilia as something els?. It is not normal for an adult man to lust after a 12 year old girl or boy anymore than a 5 year old girl or boy; while the latter may be worse in degree of offense, both are still pedophilia because for centuries now we have regarded 12 year olds (and even 15 and 16 year olds) as children, not as men or women.

Anyway, what age would you consider the cutoff for ‘young child’ and why the special labeling just for offending priest?. Why can’t they take the same label and treatment society routinely dishes out to the rest of pedophiles?

Because the lust for 12 year old boys IS as “normal” as the lust for a 12 year old girl. At that age boys and girls are pretty much interchangeable as objects for the lust of many adult males. In size and texture of skin etc. children of that age are much alike. In War a sex-starved soldier is unlikely to rape a five year old, and more likely to kill it. Pretty boys of 12 or more are not so safe.

 

[seekerz]

RobbyS is right.

I’ve come across articles from 2003 by Thomas P. Doyle, OP, an Army chaplain, doctor of canon law, and licensed counselor, on abuse. He’s an expert witness in some lawsuits over abuse. I think his description of the history of abuse and clerical response is extremely useful.

Great post. I have suspected for some time that these problems have always been with us (much like any other sin/crime that we like to pretend just became a problem in our degenerate times).

If the Church indeed strayed in this manner (from punishing pedophilia severely to keeping it secret) then we have not just enabled a grave sin (and crime) but have also neglected tradition in that regard - and to me this compounds the issue, making it even more grievous. It would pretty much shred the “that’s the such things were handled in those days” defense which I’ll admit to having subscribed to to a degree. Not knowing better is one thing, knowing better and disregarding that experience is far worse.

As for making the victims the enemy (or ignoring their plight) - that’s still far too evident. I pray for them that they may be healed of their scars, that God may give them the grace to forgive (an extremely hard thing in the face of the unrepentant attitudes they have been confronted with), that they may find some measure of justice in this life and that their ordeals may serve to prevent this ever happening again to any child. God’s blessing on them and their families.

 

[RobbyS]

It is not the “ordinary male’s sex drive” It is using sex to dominate and humiliate another individual, as in the case of rape.

Say they had castrated Fr. Murphy. He would have found another way to find his victims.

The vast majority of adult males do not engage in these crimes in our society. If they have sex outside of marriage, it is usually consensually with adult females. This is not a crime, except, in most states, when it’s transacted for money.

I wish that* someone* would dig up some dirt on the Milwaukee police and attorney general during the time Murphy was “active” in Milwaukee. After all, the church can go only so far. There’s a new article out about Murphy abusing boys in the diocese of Superior, after he had ‘retired’. IF he had been convicted of crimes in Milwaukee, Murphy would have been thrown in jail. Even after he was paroled, and escaped to life up north, the local police could have monitored him. He moved in society as a priest and was highly visible. Neither the Milwaukee nor the Superior diocese could monitor him.

And the vast majority of priests do not do this sort of thing. So leave that aside. What we all have in common, to a greater or lesser degree, is a powerful impulse to exert out will, and in the case of the male animal to propogate his own kind. Thus when a lion takes over a pride, he kills all the cubs before he mates with the females. Boyfriends are very dangerous to the young of their girl friends. In Murphy’s case. his sexual outlet took the form of sadism, which is sort of like killing but constrained by the situation and the pleasure that the sadist gets by letting the victim continue to suffer.

 

[mark_a]

Here.

cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf (note that there is some underlining and highlighting in the document that has an editorial quality…please try to disregard it when reading the document and concentrate on the document’s words, if you can)

Read paragraph 1 very, very carefully, though. This document applies to situations where a priest tempts a penitent in, or immediately after, confession.

The media took that and said that it was an official cover-up of any case of abuse and that’s not the case at all.

The reason that this document and the proceedings that could come of it were kept so closely held is that to protect the seal of confession.

Of course, the media wouldn’t see it that way.

It never ceases to amaze me that many of the folks who won’t accept any political news from the mainstream media will swallow everything about the Catholic Church presented by the mainstream media.

 

[markomalley]

It never ceases to amaze me that many of the folks who won’t accept any political news from the mainstream media will swallow everything about the Catholic Church presented by the mainstream media.

I’ve said that for years!!!

What is more shocking is that Catholics who are just as gullible.

 

[mark_a]

I’ve said that for years!!!

What is more shocking is that Catholics who are just as gullible.

Once more, I’m late to the party.

 

[RobbyS]

What I want to know is this: why the relentless attempts to relabel pedophilia as something els?. It is not normal for an adult man to lust after a 12 year old girl or boy anymore than a 5 year old girl or boy; while the latter may be worse in degree of offense, both are still pedophilia because for centuries now we have regarded 12 year olds (and even 15 and 16 year olds) as children, not as men or women.

Anyway, what age would you consider the cutoff for ‘young child’ and why the special labeling just for offending priest?. Why can’t they take the same label and treatment society routinely dishes out to the rest of pedophiles?

Take the last thing. There is a difference between a “child” and a “minor.” At the turn of the 20th Century , a 15 year old boy was likely to be doing a man’s work, and a 15-year old girl to be married. My dad took over the running of a dairy farm at that age after his dad and mom split. He had been doing the work since he was 12-13 anyway, since his dad, a townmen in Germany hated farmwork, and would not have been there if my grandmother had got got an inheritance and her brother able to get a farm for the family. We do try to force 15-18 year olds to live under the same rules as 12-year olds, at least in the schools, which of course does not work well in urban schools because male bucks will not tolerate it.

As for the priests. Yes, they did get deferential treatment, but consider the difference in the way that officers and enlisted are treated in the military. Look at the way the Kennedy klan got treated. And of course it is ironical that as bishops got less and less
authoritarian and began to treat priests as brothers rather than servants, the discipline grew lax, and bad priests got away with murder.

 

[seekerz]

Take the last thing. There is a difference between a “child” and a “minor.” At the turn of the 20th Century , a 15 year old boy was likely to be doing a man’s work, and a 15-year old girl to be married. My dad took over the running of a dairy farm at that age after his dad and mom split. He had been doing the work since he was 12-13 anyway, since his dad, a townmen in Germany hated farmwork, and would not have been there if my grandmother had got got an inheritance and her brother able to get a farm for the family. We do try to force 15-18 year olds to live under the same rules as 12-year olds, at least in the schools, which of course does not work well in urban schools because male bucks will not tolerate it.

As for the priests. Yes, they did get deferential treatment, but consider the difference in the way that officers and enlisted are treated in the military. Look at the way the Kennedy klan got treated. And of course it is ironical that as bishops got less and less
authoritarian and began to treat priests as brothers rather than servants, the discipline grew lax, and bad priests got away with murder.

You make some interesting points but regardless of the age of the victims, the offending priests were also in positions of authority (similarly to teachers), so it was also a violation of trust (not to mention a breaking of civil and church law) so there’s no re-definition of their acts that will make them appear less grievous.

Deferential treatment for priests who live their vocation honorably is one thing; these offenders deserve nothing more than common criminals - actually the argument could be made that since they bound themselves by higher standards, they deserve less. Sinning or committing a crime is one thing; spending your life in that behavior with no show of real repentance is a whole nuther kettle of fish…

 

[Alethiaphile]

Unfortunately, they have done none of these. They have misrepresented the facts, especially the context of the facts. What they have done is nothing short of an outright attack on the Church for the sake of destroying the Church, which they’ll never be able to do. The Church will be around long, long after they’re gone.
A fair, balanced, factual report would’ve been very helpful. Instead, they’ve resorted to sloppy investigation, latching onto anything that looks bad, true or not. This clearly shows, I think, their anti-Catholic bigotry.
Satan is always quite willing to hide an ounce of lie in a pound of truth. I explain it this way. If I gave you a glass full of the finest wine, and mixed in a tablespoon of sewerage, would you drink it? No! Why? What would it be? Because it would be a glass full of sewerage. The same applies to the truth.

You’re missing the crucial point. Yes, many in the media have an anti-Catholic Church agenda, and will exaggerate or present things out of context. Doesn’t matter. What matters is, the ammunition was there to begin with. The media did not try to cover up molestation, the hierarchy did that. Stop complaining abut the media, and start blaming Rome for allowing these things to happen in the first place.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

In reply to NEWCATHOLICJEFF

Originally Posted by Zoe Brain

I ask though that apologists not try to blame the victims, or the press, or the enemies of the Church, or the Atheists, or the Jews, or the gays, or the Illuminati any more.

I am no apologist and I do not blame individuals, but motives. I ask why? If any of these people work in a large organization they would understand that it is not about being lazy or incompetent but the shear size of some organizations means you must depend on subordinates to perform their functions.

I forgot to include the Masons on that list. I see they’re the latest group to be blamed. And if an organisation is so big that it creates such problems from its sheer size, maybe it’s too big to continue in its current form without re-organisation and re-structuring, delegating authority downwards. The current situation isn’t acceptable, but I’m open to any alternative that preserves the Church while fixing the problem.

In other words, at least for sin and the involvement of Satan, I always follow the money or a personal motive. I understand that you can have many types and styles of motives, money is pretty easy. That being said what could the motives be.

1. Prevention (Honorable)
2. Justice (Acceptable)
3. Financial Gain (Possibly Selfish)
4. Hurting the Church to promoting a position on a different agenda (Wrong)
5. False witness or distortion for amusement (Evil)

I am sure you can find many more, but when I hear arguments from anybody I ask myself what is “In it for them”.

Exactly. When a group blames the Jews, the Gays, the Masons, and pretty much anyone except themselves for reporting on some heinous crimes they’re apparently guilty of… are they doing it to prevent character assassination generally? To prevent injustice? For Financial Gain - since these scandals have bankrupted several diocese already? In order to vilify their traditional opponents - Jews, Gays, Masons? Or to cover up their own sordid misdeeds?