C
commenter
Guest
I have supported Vatican 2 since it happened. My post did not reflect on Vatican 2, but about other things.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
My mistake. I misread “Vatican documents” as “Vatican II.” Consider my post appropriately modified. (which I have now done.)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Hmmm…Catholic men, you say? “We desire nothing more than to become saints amidst scandal,” you say? Really?
Well, funny you should write, because it turns out that the Pope has been hearing complaints about how Catholic men are not getting the reputation of being a lot different than any other group of men in the US, and certainly not a different reputation than Catholic bishops getting reports of abuses of power by men among their own number with whom they have a personal relationship. The reputation they have is that they take the side of the accused and view accusers with skepticism.
Do you look the other way when a man within your sphere of influence isn’t, ahem, quite as appropriate as he ought to be? Are you in the habit of stepping in or speaking up when one of your sisters in Christ–or anyone in an inferior position, for that matter–is being treated like an object by other men? When women complain about egregious behavior they endured many years ago, are you jumping up and down about their allegations and demanding a change of expectations? Do you ever automatically defend the accused as having good reputations and generally act as if the accusers aren’t to be believed? If so, how are you any different than the bishops you’re criticizing?
So…how about you do the hard work and saintly work of reforming your own sphere of influence first, how about you speak up to power in your workplaces and legislatures and places of business and even among your pals in your social and professional network where it is your duty to do so, how about you start to seriously listen to those making accusations of long-standing and institutionalized abuses of power that are brought to your attention, and how about you come and lecture other people in the Church when your own reputation in the world for standing up for victims of abuse of power is a lot less impeachable than it is right now? Have you defended the expectation that men out having one-night stands of mortal sin should not have their reputations for chivalry questioned, for instance? Why would you do that? What good thing are you protecting, exactly?
In other words, it is fine to ask the bishops to act in a visible way concerning this scandal, but it doesn’t mean much unless the same men are looking around and asking whether or not they are ignoring abuses that are in their own spheres of influence, whether that sphere be very large or very small.
Some of the men who are signatories to the original letter undoubtedly do just that, but if we are talking about scandals, Catholic men also ought to know how it feels to be thrown into a bag of accusations when a scandal blows through. When they draft their suggestions to the bishops, then, they ought to be very sure they’re walking what they’re talking and walking a mile in the shoes they’re sending before they sign.
Well, funny you should write, because it turns out that the Pope has been hearing complaints about how Catholic men are not getting the reputation of being a lot different than any other group of men in the US, and certainly not a different reputation than Catholic bishops getting reports of abuses of power by men among their own number with whom they have a personal relationship. The reputation they have is that they take the side of the accused and view accusers with skepticism.
Do you look the other way when a man within your sphere of influence isn’t, ahem, quite as appropriate as he ought to be? Are you in the habit of stepping in or speaking up when one of your sisters in Christ–or anyone in an inferior position, for that matter–is being treated like an object by other men? When women complain about egregious behavior they endured many years ago, are you jumping up and down about their allegations and demanding a change of expectations? Do you ever automatically defend the accused as having good reputations and generally act as if the accusers aren’t to be believed? If so, how are you any different than the bishops you’re criticizing?
So…how about you do the hard work and saintly work of reforming your own sphere of influence first, how about you speak up to power in your workplaces and legislatures and places of business and even among your pals in your social and professional network where it is your duty to do so, how about you start to seriously listen to those making accusations of long-standing and institutionalized abuses of power that are brought to your attention, and how about you come and lecture other people in the Church when your own reputation in the world for standing up for victims of abuse of power is a lot less impeachable than it is right now? Have you defended the expectation that men out having one-night stands of mortal sin should not have their reputations for chivalry questioned, for instance? Why would you do that? What good thing are you protecting, exactly?
In other words, it is fine to ask the bishops to act in a visible way concerning this scandal, but it doesn’t mean much unless the same men are looking around and asking whether or not they are ignoring abuses that are in their own spheres of influence, whether that sphere be very large or very small.
Some of the men who are signatories to the original letter undoubtedly do just that, but if we are talking about scandals, Catholic men also ought to know how it feels to be thrown into a bag of accusations when a scandal blows through. When they draft their suggestions to the bishops, then, they ought to be very sure they’re walking what they’re talking and walking a mile in the shoes they’re sending before they sign.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
No disagreement. I have posted many times on threads that the scandal among laity is worse than the scandal among priests and bishops. I am thinking of horrendous rate of marriage breakdown, use of porn, extreme passivity towards the proabortion movement, failure to defend religious liberty in the US as well as for Christians in the Mideast. I think of the issues you raise as well. These are worse than the bishop issues.
I do what I can.
I do what I can.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t know about worse, because of course the bishops leading from within the Church ought to be beyond reproach. The bishops I have known tremble at the responsibility placed on their shoulders and the reckoning they will have to make one day. They are in a position of authority that is unique. They might write, “we in the episcopacy especially have a duty to want nothing but to be saints” but I don’t think you’ll see them writing that they’ve achieved that position when they’re getting warmed up to chide someone else for their failures!
Having said that, yes: my point was that Catholics in general and Catholic men and those who have had the benefit of a Catholic secondary and university education in particular have a great deal of authority in this country, too, and they’re not exactly out drumming up the expectation that Catholics in general “desire nothing more than to become saints amidst scandal.” To say that about oneself is to set the bar very high for oneself, not for those one is addressing.
That is what struck me about the letter…that is, that the writers of the letter put themselves on a bit of a moral pedestal, a move that leaves them very open to questions about how they are wielding their own considerable influence. It is a question worth asking, yet one that their letter does not raise.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Yeah, the letter is imperfect. Yes, there are 4 million other things they didn’t touch on. I’m not thrilled about the letter but thought it worthy of reading.
P
PetraG
Guest
Definitely worth reading, and I don’t think the bishops can afford to set it aside lightly.
Let us just us say that the bishops would not get away with putting themselves on a pedestal in a letter calling out other people in the world on their need for amendment of life, particularly in matters of standing up for people who have credible complaints against fellow members of the religious heirarchy rather than covering for the accused. The juxtaposition is counter-productive, to put it mildly.
Last edited:
C
ChristMyLife
Guest
Just a factual correction…
Argentina actually is a third world country.
The 1st-2nd-3rd world model came into being during the days of the Cold War and was used to identify the Western Power bloc from the Eastern/Soviet bloc and the unaffiliated.
The 1st world would be the developed Western nations such as the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, and their closest and largest allies.
The 2nd world would be the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and their closest and largest allies.
The 3rd world is all other countries of the world. Mexico, India, Egypt, Libya, Argentina. All the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are 3rd world.
So actually Pope Francis is from the Third World.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Not only that, but the whole concept of entire nations being on a different economic footing is a bit erroneous. As you note, it is based on a Cold War model of thought, not a model that reflects real need for humanitarian aid or economic development. There are pockets of vastly different economic situations in nearly every country of any size.
Our developed nation can have some wildly different infrastructure amenities and room for economic development, depending on where you are. Likewise, there are countries in which the infrastructure in major cities is comparable to anything in the US, but the rural areas (and areas recently struck by catastrophic natural disasters) are without paved roads, or reliable power or perhaps modern sewage treatment facilities. More to the point, satellites and the internet have added a layer of complexity to the whole question. A village in the middle of nowhere might have no physical infrastructure but still might have electronic banking available to those with cell phones. We live in a very different world than the one in which the 1st/2nd/3rd world categories were first conceived.
I think the Pope is well aware of political climates around the world. Again–with the internet, these things are more interrelated than at any time in human history, beyond what could be imagined to happen so soon even 30 years ago.
Last edited:
J
JSAD
Guest
Sign, do what you can. Pressure from the laity will help the vatican move in the right direction.
G
graciew
Guest
Sounds more like you are describing a scrum. And this isn t rugby.
Where did you get the Church works by " pressure" from?
Where did you get the Church works by " pressure" from?
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Read it. Won’t sign it.
A
adgloriam
Guest
Pope Francis told us to read the Viganò letter and draw our own conclusions.
What conclusions did we draw?
What conclusions did we draw?
A
adgloriam
Guest
Pope Francis told us and also the press to read the Viganò letter and draw conclusions. So far I haven’t seen a single investigative article in the press worth reading. I also haven’t seen much by way of logic, deduction and reasoning on most threads. Because it would be a really interesting exercise.
A
adgloriam
Guest
@PetraG in fact I have tried some of that and the results were noteworthy. Sociology becomes the dominant factor in power structures, any organization will naturally react the same way. Also, in society the agents invested in the social game will go to the greatest lengths to avoid objective analyses of the game and their roles in it - since they paid the social prices demanded to partake in the game.
[Thus the signatures of the letter are noteworthy for the pompous social titles that go with them, the social agents subscribe themselves more by their social role than anything else. Especially since they pronounce themselves about a social game they don’t participate in directly.]
[Thus the signatures of the letter are noteworthy for the pompous social titles that go with them, the social agents subscribe themselves more by their social role than anything else. Especially since they pronounce themselves about a social game they don’t participate in directly.]
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I’ve said it again and again: once we found out that the mothers and grandmothers of victims protected pedophiles from discovery in order to keep up a good front or because they wanted to believe “good men” couldn’t do such thing, we had to know that anyone who ought to be protecting children from harm could do something similar.
Yes, it is a lot harder when you’re the one who has to expose the family or group who gives you your identity to the worst sort of publicity. It shouldn’t be, not next to wanting to protect every single person you can from unwanted sexual overtures, let alone sexual attacks, but that is the way it seems to play out. Children aren’t always protected, women aren’t always protected, the underlings aren’t protected, students and seminarians aren’t always protected from people who get positions of trust and a high status and reputation.
It is no surprise to me that Hillary Clinton argues that it wasn’t an abuse of power when the President of the United States had a sexual affair with a female intern working at the White House. She’s had her wagon hooked to Bill Clinton’s power and status for so long, she can’t admit that there isn’t a workplace in the US where that would be OK between even an immediate supervisor and any intern, let alone the president of the organization…or good grief, the President of the United States! This is what “protect the shield” can lead to: dismissing that kind of thing as having a husband who is “a hard dog to keep on the porch” and writing off his consorts as trash while her own adulterous husband is seen as the keeper.
I think the writer who said that cost her the presidency made a fair point. It ought to have, too:
Hillary Clinton’s view on the Lewinsky affair reveals a huge blind spot that cost her the presidency | Suzanne Moore
Hillary is right to say Trump should be investigated for sexual misconduct, but this does not excuse her husband. Now it is Monica Lewinsky who is emerging with class
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
2
2towers
Guest
Don’t you think that is a bit of an overreach? Anyone really feeling this way isn’t really a Catholic. [I am sure we both feel that way]
A
adgloriam
Guest
I won’t read the Guardian on matter of principle. But I bookmarked the post.
No one was able to comment the Viganò letter sufficiently. [Exactly the challenge pope Francis issued and every single news outlet was incompetent to or avoided. ] And that is how hard it is to actually comment and analyze the dynamics between the Curia and the bishops conference from the outside.
And you say it right: Practically every single organization works that same way.
[I sometimes wonder what the sense was in trying to counter those tendencies in my own life.]
-They should have written a collective analyses like pope Francis told them to do.
No one was able to comment the Viganò letter sufficiently. [Exactly the challenge pope Francis issued and every single news outlet was incompetent to or avoided. ] And that is how hard it is to actually comment and analyze the dynamics between the Curia and the bishops conference from the outside.
And you say it right: Practically every single organization works that same way.
[I sometimes wonder what the sense was in trying to counter those tendencies in my own life.]
-They should have written a collective analyses like pope Francis told them to do.
Last edited:
A
Axsenex
Guest
Oh I found out today about this petition.
P
PetraG
Guest
The problem is that in the US about 25% of Greek Orthodox also report attending Mass weekly. They have the True Presence and they didn’t have a Vatican II. Worse yet, 90% of US residents with Greek roots are no longer in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church.
I think these trends come from modernism, from the high rate of intermarriage between faiths (which leads to relativism), from the scandal of so many barbaric modern wars, including but not limited to WWI and WWII. As for the religious sisters, let’s face it: in the early part of the century, women typically went from their parents home and straight to marriage. Now women live alone without a marriage or a community; it is acceptable to society. That means that just as fewer women major in early childhood education, nursing and library science–and very few major in home economics–there are fewer women who join a religious community as a result of deciding not to marry.
Whatever the case, the changes that came out of Vatican II are innings played. The question is how to go forward without some of the hidden evils that we now know did happen prior to Vatican II, such as sexual abuse being hidden. (My husband’s grandmother’s family quit going to Catholic church because the priest in their small town was inappropriate with the young women; this was around 1905 or 1910, not 1970.)
Last edited:
- Status